πος 


a“ Sts ἀγεέσ τε 
᾿ ; 
Hip ahey arbi mrer νον pss ase: . . 
ry eet Ἷ 


ων 
Piette) ; ae 2 r me 


Ὁ ye 


rates -------------- 


i βῆ τα ΤΡ ΠΛ 
Theological Seminary, 
PRINCETON. MOF 

BV 648 .J3336 1872 
acob, G. A. 1807-1896. 


he ecclesiastical polity of 
the New Testament 


THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


THE 


ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY 


OF 


THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


A STUDY FOR THE PRESENT CRISIS IN THE 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 


BY THE 
ae δ. ἃ. JACOR. D:D, 


Late Heap-Master oF Curist’s Hospiran. 


NEW-YORK: 
os. IW§ ELVES? AK ἘΠ Bs 
No. 2 BrstE Howse. 


1872. 


St. Johnland Stereotype Foundry, 


SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. Y. 


PREFACE. 


NHE following pages were written as a course of 
Lectures; which, however, were not delivered. 
They are now presented to the public in their original 
form and arrangement, though with some alterations 
in the substance of their contents, in the belief that a 
review of the organization and outward life of the 
Christian Church, as exhibited in the New Testament, 
and compared with the Church in the post-apostolie 
times, especially in what is termed the Nicene period, 
will suggest some useful thoughts for the Church of 
England in the crisis through which it is now passing. 
The words which M. de Pressensé wrote a few years 
ago in the Preface of his ‘Church History’ have lost 
none of their force and truth at the present time. “Il 
n’est pas un seul parti religieux qui n’éprouve le besoin 
ou de se raffermir ou de se transformer. Les Eglises 
nées du grand mouvement du seiziéme siécle sont toutes 
engagées dans une crise sérieuse.” 
Whether this crisis shall in our case issue in good, 
or in evil, is almost identical with the question whether 
the English Church has sufficient wisdom to see what 


ought to be done, and sufficient courage to do se 
v) 


vi PREFACE. 


The object of these Lectures is not to advocate the 
views or opinions of any Church party, or theological 
school; but to present to thoughtful men a view of the 
Christian religion in its original form ; to mark some of 
the differences between Scripture truth and Church tra- 
dition, between the primitive state of Christianity as it 
came from the Apostles, and what it became in the 
hands of uninspired men; and from thence to point 
out some obvious suggestions for our consideration at 
the present time. 

It has been thought desirable in almost every case, 
instead of merely giving references to quote the words 
of the authorities appealed to; and to these the atten- 
tion of the reader is especially requested. 


TWICKENHAM, 
May, 1871. 


CON TH NES: 


I. PAGE 
Tar APOSTLES AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ........-cce-ececcees 3 
II. 
Tae First ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH .............00 see eees 37 
III. 


A FuRTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE CuHrisTIAN Ministry (With a 
special reference to the question whether it is rightly re- 


warded. as: a. Priesthood) «12. v5.0. πο 5. tn cde iv cae cise ewan tO 
IV. 
Tar Larry, on Curistian Bopy at Larce (With their Position 
ἘΠΕ ΙΗ) πλήν on 2, Siw in sins acmeeiecrie, Sala Be lee wee ς 135 
V. 
ποτ ORR nN Sate Se oat fe kalo ogee ὅνον πὸ ον 187 
VI. 
MUIRSSREAS PRADUIAM S052 cc ιν με εν si oive Wiese nie noe ves ogee τορος ne ἐνο εἶν 241 


VIII CONTENTS. 


VIL. PAGH 
Roe Pass SUEPER ΝΡ 01 285 
VIII. 
RPPTACATION AND “CONGLUBION ὡς εἰν νοις sds seed sh wee ny Leese 323 


APPENDIX A. 


Somz Practices AND DocTRINES OF THE EARLY CHURCH ......... S71 
APPENDIX B. 
CHE AUTHORITY OF COUNUIES 5250). sce co.cc codes seubes τιδο ΕΝ 402 


APPENDIX C. 


CoNFESSION, ABSOLUTION, AND PENANCE.... .....cccececccccccees 410 
APPENDIX D. 
PE PURPOLIGAT: SOOGMEERONE... oo. x cies wads « ες ον ΕΣ 418 


νι " i 
i ι 
pas vy 
nat + Ἂ j 
~ ye ἣν 
7 = ν xT 
va , 
=, ᾿ 
΄- : 
‘ 
: . 
$7, 
‘3 aa . 
" > 
: . 
‘ 
* ᾿ ‘ 
. 5 
. - 
‘ ἱ 
. 


THE APOSTLES AND THE CHRISTIAN 


ἘΣ CHURCH. poacg Werte 


πεν) 


eee Soren 
ate? 3 
pie Pes Gin 


THE APOSTLES AND THE CHRISTIAN 
CHURCH. 


HERE are in the New Testament several names 
and titles given to Christians as individual men, 
each one in and for himself believing in Christ, and guided 
by His Spirit: and many doctrines and preceptive 
instructions are addressed to them in this character, 
_ with a view to their personal edification, and their pro- 
gress in the Christian life. 
But however true it may be that this individual 
Christianity is the first and most important ;—and that 
his own particular religious state is the first and most 
important consideration for each human soul ;—it is 
evident that it was from the beginning the intention of 
the Divine Founder of our religion that there should 
be societies or communities of His disciples, acting. 
together as united members of a corporate body, with 
mutual relations to each other as well as to Himself, 


and with mutual duties connected with this union. 
, (3) 


4 THE APOSTLES AND 


Different names are accordingly given to them,—some 
with a figurative, and others with a more literal mean- 
ing,—descriptive of this religious incorporation, and ex- 
hibiting different aspects of its nature and design. 

As therefore the subject which I propose to consider 
embraces the Kcclesiastical Polity of the Apostles of 
Christ—or the organization and outward life of the 
Apostolic Church as it appears in the New Testament— 
it may be well first of all to notice, briefly, the most 
prominent of these descriptive names, and the manner 
in which the apostolic office and work are set forth 
in connection with them. 


1.—Christians represented as a temple. 


One of the most striking figures, hy which the cor- 
porate life of Christians is described represents them 
as a magnificent and sacred building—a temple of God 
wherein He spiritually dwells. In this figure each 
Christian is one of the stones built up into the gradually 
rising structure ;—the apostles are sometimes the founda- 
tion, or stones first laid in the building, sometimes them- 
selves the builders of the temple ;—and Jesus Christ is 
in one aspect the builder, in another the foundation, and 
in another the chief corner-stone. Thus our Lord said to 
Peter, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
my Church.” St. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, “Ye are 
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone, in 
whom all the building fitly framed together groweth 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 5 


unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are 
builded together for a habitation of God through the 
Spirit.” And to the Corinthians, “Ye are God’s build- 
ing ;—as a wise master-builder I have laid the founda- 
tion, and another buildeth thereon ;—other foundation 
can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ.” And St. Peter, in similar terms, “To whom 
coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, 
but chosen of God and precious, ye also as living stones 
are built up a spiritual house.” 


2.—Christians represented as the body of Christ. 


Another figure which frequently occurs in the Pauline 
Epistles,—a figure more simple and familiar, but more 
rich in spiritual sympathies, and in the view which it 
displays of the Christian’s life, strength, health, and joy, 
in his union with the Saviour,—describes the whole 
number of Christian people as a body—the body of 
Christ ;—Christ Himself being the head, and each Chris- 
tian one of the members,—so that the whole together are 
even said to be “Christ.” Thus to the Corinthians it is 
written, “For as the body is one and hath many mem- 
bers, and all the members of that one body, being many, 
are one body, so also is Christ; for by one spirit we are 
all baptized into one body.” The Ephesians are ex- 
horted to “grow up into Him in ail things which is the 
head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, fitly 
joined together, and compacted by that which every 
joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the 


6 LHE APOSTLES AND 


measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto 
the edifying of itself in love.” In a similar manner the 
bringing in of Christians indiscriminately from all nations 
is spoken of as “the myStery,” or once hidden truth, 
“that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the 
same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by 
the Gospel.” The various Church ministrations, to 
which the different gifts of grace gave birth, are said 
to have been designed “ For the perfecting of the saints, 
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 
of Christ.” And those who departed from essential 
Christian truth are described as “not holding the head, 
from which all the body by joints and bands haying 
nourishment ministered and knit together increaseth 
with the increase of God.” 

But of far more frequent occurrence than either of 
these figurative appellations are the two names of a 
“ Kingdom,” and a “Church ;” which represent not by 
way of similitude, but as a matter of fact, the united 
state and position of Christ’s disciples ;—the former 
expression appearing most frequently in the Gospel 
narratives, as commonly used by Jesus Himself in his 
public lite among the Jewish nation; while the latter 
occurs more often, though not exclusively, in the Acts 
and ‘Epistles, as employed by the Apostles in their 
ministrations in the world at large. 


3.—Christians the subjects of a kingdom. 
In the very beginning of the Gospel it was declared 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 7 


that the mission of Jesus was to establish in the world 
a kingdom—the kingdom of heaven or of God—of which 
He was Himself to be the king. John the Baptist, as 
His forerunner, proclaimed, “The kingdom of heaven 
is at hand.” Jesus Himself, at the first commencement 
of His ministry, published the same announcement. He 
ealled His public teaching, “preaching the kingdom of 
God;” He told those who rejected Him that “the 
kingdom of God had come upon them before they were 
aware ’—idbacer ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς: and in the “ good confession” 
which He witnessed before Pilate, He acknowledged 
Himself to be a King—not indeed of this world’s king- 
doms, but of a kingdom founded on divine truth, and 
containing the lovers of truth as its subjects. 

The Apostles of Christ were heralds sent forth to pro- 
claim this kingdom, and to invite men into it. They 
preached “the Gospel of the kingdom.” Those who 
assisted them in their ministrations were styled their 
“fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God.” Those who 
listened to their proclamation, and joined themselves to 
their company, were assured that they were “no longer 
strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the 
saints ;’—they were “called into God’s kingdom ;’— 
“translated into the kingdom of his dear Son.” 


4—Christians formed into a church—éuxanotia. 


The word “Church ”—éxxAyncia—signified primarily 
any number of men possessing common privileges, and 
called out (éxxAyro1), or summoned, to meet together for 


ὃ THE APOSTLES AND 


the exercise of some common or united functions. And 
in the New Testament it is used especially of Christian 
men in their collective capacity, having been called by 
God’s grace out of the darkness of sin and condemna- 
tion into the light and liberty of the Gospel covenant ; 
and in Christ, as citizens of His kingdom, enjoying 
common privileges, and entitled to united action as a 
lawfully constituted community. 

The word thus used is found in the New Testament 
with either a comprehensive or a restricted meaning— 
in the singular or the plural number—the Church, a 
Church, or Churches. 

(a.) In its highest and most comprehensive significa- 
tion it denotes all real Christians, who have been, are, 
or will be, on earth, and who will be united in Christ’s 
kingdom of glory. It is in this sense that St. Paul 
speaks of “the general assembly and Church of the first- 
born which are written in heaven.” In this sense the 
Church is the true body of Christ, “the fulness of Him’ 
that filleth all in all;” in which the glory of God will be 
displayed “throughout all ages world without end.” 

(b.) It is also used to signify the “Visible Catholic 
Church,” ὦ. ¢., all professing Christians living at any 
given time upon earth: in which sense, “The Lord 
added to the Church daily those who were being saved ;” 
and St. Paul exhorted the Corinthians to “give none 
offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to 
the Church of God.” 

(c.) But this word is much more frequently used with 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 9 


a restricted meaning to denote a distinct Christian com- 
munity in a particular place; in which connection it 
should be observed that in the apostolic writings it is 
never said of a country or nation. It is always the 
Church in a city or town. Neither is it ever said to be 
the Church of any given town ;' but always in or at the 
place,—or else the Church of the inhabitants, i.e. the 
Christian inhabitants of the town ; as “ the Church which 
was at Jerusalem ;” “the Church that was in Antioch ;” 
“the Church of the Laodiceans.” Whenever the Chris- 
tians of a country or nation are spoken of collectively, 
the word is always in the plural number; as, ‘“ The 
- Churches of Galatia ; “‘ The Churches of Judea.” There 
is no example of a “National Church” in the New 
Testament.’ 

(d.) And lastly, in its most restricted meaning, the 
word is applied to a congregation assembling in one 
place for Christian worship; as, “The Church that is in 
their house ;’ “ When ye come together in the Church,” 


national life, are not divine or apos- 
tolic institutions. Their propriety 


1An apparent, but not a real, 
exception is found in Rev. ii. 1, 


«‘ Unto the angel of the Church of 
Ephesus ;”’ but this is an error, for 
the words are, τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς 
᾿Εφεσίνης éunaAnoias, not’ Epé- 
6ov; not to mention that τῷ ἐν 
᾿Εφέδωῳ is a preferable reading. 

2 From the very circumstances of 
the case there could be no such 
thing as a ““ National Church” in 
the apostolic period. National 
Churches, however justifiable and 
desirable in certain periods of 


rests altogether on the ground of 
general expediency and public ad- 
vantage ; and to attempt to furnish 
them with a higher sanction by 
arguments drawn from the theo- 
cratic government of the Jewish 
people seems to me to savour but 
little of sound reasoning, and to 
confound together some of the 
distinctive characteristics of two 
widely different dispensations. 


ΙΟ ; THE APOSTLES AND 


ὦ.6. in your assembly as a Christian congregation ;—and, 
“if the whole Church be come together into one place.’ 

But the word is never used in the New Testament to 
signify a building or a place of worship:* nor does it 
ever mean Christian ministers as distinguished from the 
general body of Christians. On the contrary, in two 
instances, it is found to signify the Laity or general body 
as distinguished from the Apostles and Elders; thus, 
“they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles 
and Elders, and it pleased the Apostles and Elders with 
the whole Church,’ who are afterwards in the same 
chapter designated as “the Apostles, and the Elders, 


and the Brethren.’’’ 


1 The word Church in 1 Cor. xi. 
18-22, is sometimes represented as 
meaning a building ; but no reason 
can be assigned for this, except the 
puerile one (which would justify 
any amount of erroneous transla- 
tion), that such a rendering will 
make sense in this particular pas- 
sage. There isno good example of 
éxuAnoia meaning a building ear- 
lier than the third century. 

2£Ttis by no means an unneces- 
sary or trivial thing to mark these 
different significations of the word 
Church. What may justly be af- 
firmed of the Church in one sense, 
may be a fatal delusion when ap- 
plied to itin another. And the want 
of clearly distinguishing between 
such differences has been at the 
root of many evils in the course of 
ecclesiastical history. Thus, in the 
third century, both Novatian and 


his orthodox opponents fell into the 
sume fundamental error of con- 
founding the visible with the invis- 
ible Church, though they differed in 
the application of their mistaken 
notion. Throughout the Nicene 
period, the same unfortunate mis- 
take wrought incalculable mischief 
in doctrine and in practice. It is 
needless to say that it has domi- 
nated in the Church of Rome. And 
even now there are those amongst 
ourselves who to this ancient mis- 
apprehension join the additional 
error of confounding their own par- 
ticular Church platform with that 
of the whole Catholic Church, to 
the great detriment of Christian 
feeling, and the encouragement of 
a blind and uncharitable bigotry. 
‘‘Tnextricable confusion and 
dangerous error must arise, unless 
we keep distinct two things—abso- 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. II 


Of this Gospel Church in its highest and most com- 
prehensive meaning our Lord Jesus Christ is declared to 
be the Head ;—the source of life to each member of this 
His body ;—the chief shepherd of this flock and fold. 
But while all true Christians are thus united to Him. 
and have in Him a common life, the Church, in thie 
sense, being at present altogether a spiritual body, has 
no visible form or organization, in the regulation of 
which man has anything to do, however human instru- 
mentality may be employed in bringing men, one atfter 
another, into it. The place and time of its manifesta- 
tion in its completeness as an organized community,— 
or what St. Paul terms a zodirevua,—is not on earth or 
in the existing gospel dispensation. 

The Church which the Apostles were sent forth to 
constitute and establish in the world, though possessing 
spiritual blessings, and containing within it those who 
have an inner spiritual life in Christ, is yet a visible 
body, Catholic or one in nature, privilege, doctrine, and 
position, so far as any portion of it succeeds in realising 


lutely different in themselves, and [the portion of the invisible Cath- 


yet too often regarded as one and 
the same—I mean, on the one 
hand, visible Christianity, or the 
system of Christian doctrines and 
practices existing or established in 
this and that country, sometimes 
giving direction to the course of 
events on the great stage of affairs, 
sometimes depressed and confined 
within the narrowest limits; and, 
on the other hand, the True Church 


olic Church] on earth, or the 
ageregate of individuals, whether 
scattered or congregated, whose 
hearts have been quickened from 
above, and whose dispositions and 
conduct are actually governed by 
the genuine motives of the Gospel ; 
in a word, the children of God, of 
whatever name or communion.’’— 
‘Ancient Christianity,’ p. 433. 


12 THE APOSTLES. AND 


its professed character and state; but including any 
number of Christian societies, which, as far as human 
authority is concerned, are independent of each other. 
Tt is this visible Catholic Church,—as a community,—or 
number of communities, of professedly Christian men,— 
in the regulation of which human agency has in all ages 
had a part to take and a duty to perform; and the 
polity of which as instituted by the Apostles we have 
now to consider. 

The two names of a Kingdom and a Church, although 
sometimes apparently used as synonymous and inter- 
changeable, yet represent the Christian body under 
different aspects, and correspond respectively with the 
moral and the religious position of Christ’s disciples. 
And, in connection with this distinction, it may be ob- 
served, that the kingdom of God, with Jesus as its king, 
began during the Saviour’s life upon earth; but the 
Church was not brought into existence until after He 
had left the world. 

Jesus Himself commenced his kingdom ; and those 
who attached themselves to Him became its citizens. 
Jesus Himself made known the great moral principles 
which were to regulate His subjects; as may be seen in 
a condensed form in the Sermon on the Mount, and 
more diffusively in other portions of the Gospel narra- 
tives. He shewed plainly in the course of His instruc- 

1 Some rationalistic writers have only a moral Rabbinical teacher 


unfairly seized on this circum- introducing a purified Judaism 
stance to represent that Jesus was without adding a single doctrine to 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 13 


tions that the moral life, or citizenship, in His kingdom 
was not a mere enforced subjection to the yoke of law, 
or an_outward conformity with the letter of command- 
ments; but a life proceeding from an inward powe1 
imparted by His spirit to those who were united to Him, 
as fruitful branches of the living vine ;—a life acting 
through the influence of love, and not of a slavish fear, 
producing a happy, spiritual, and enlarged obedience 
to His will, and extending to every particular of the 
And all that was left for His 
Apostles, in this portion of their work, was to proclaim 
and inculcate what Christ Himself had taught,—to teach 
men that “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
made His subjects free from the law of sin and death” 


Christian character. 


(Rom. viii. 2), in order that they might live the new life 
unto God ;—and to exhort them to walk in a manner 
worthy of the vocation wherewith they had been called, 
—the heavenly citizenship to which they had been 
admitted. ; 

But the Church was not begun until after the descent 
of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles on the day of 
Pentecost; and it is never mentioned, except prospec- 
Men could be admitted into 
the kingdom of Christ, as soon as they were willing to 


tively, before that time. 


the older religion. They ignore 
the important facts that Chris- 
tianity, as a religion, could not exist 
until after the death of Christ ; 
and also that, although the Chris- 
tian life in its moral aspect is the 


more prominent in the Gospels, 
yet the great Christian doctrines 
are also alluded to ; and, above all, 
the historical foundation of those 
doctrines is most distinctly re- 
corded. 


14 THE APOSTLES AND 


submit to His authority, and to conform to the life 
which He lived and taught; but they could not be 
formed into a Church, until they believed in Him as the 
Son of God,—the Saviour of those who received Him, 
by the justifying righteousness of His life and the 
atoning sacrifice of His death,—and the imparter of 
the Holy Spirit, and the future judge of man ; and this 
could not be, until after His work on earth was done, 
and He had risen again, and ascended into heaven. 

The Apostles, therefore, were the founders of the 
Christian Church. They were its divinely appointed 
and infallible teachers and legislators. They were its 
supreme authorities on earth, to declare its doctrines 
and to prescribe its form and polity,—to admit into it 
and exclude from it,—to bind and to loose,—to remit 
and to retain sins. They were in short to organize the 
Church as a regular society possessed of a definite 
character, with its own especial rights, privileges, and 
objects. They were to rule in it as long as they lived; 
and it rested with them to leave such instructions for 
its future guidance, as they might consider necessary for 
its continuance and welfare, as a permanent institution 
in the world. 

To qualify them for this high office and important 
work the Apostles received a divine authority and power, 
from the commission of Christ, and the inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit. The authority was given them by 
Christ Himself, when He said to them, as recorded by 
St. Matthew, “Go ye therefore and teach—or rather 


Ξ THE CHRISTIAN ‘CHURCH. 15 


μαθητεύσατε, make disciples of—all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things, 
whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with 
you always, even unto the end of the world.”, And when, 
as related by St. John, He declared to them, “As my 
Father hath sent me, even so send I you ;” and, “ Whose- 
_ goever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and 
- whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Anda 
divine power was given to them by the coming of the 
Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus had told them beforehand, 
that when He was gone they should receive another Com- 
forter, to abide with them forever—even the Holy Ghost, 
who would teach them all things, and bring all things to 
their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them ; 
_ and who, as the Spirit of truth, would “ guide them into 
all the truth,” πᾶσαν τὴν d&Ajberar,—which they were 
to proclaim to men. This was “the power from on 
high,” for which, after His ascension, they were “to 
tarry at Jerusalem.” This power, as the last words 
of Jesus informed them, “they would receive, when 
the Holy Spirit came upon them,” and thus fitted them 
to be His witnesses and ambassadors, throughout the 
world. 

And this power and authority were both combined in 
those words, so often, as I venture to think, misinter- 
preted and misapplied, which Jesus addressed to Peter— 
certainly not to the exclusion of the other Apostles— 
“Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my 


16 


GHEE APOSTLES AND 


Church ;* and I will give unto thee the keys of the king- 
dom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”? (Matt. 


11 am unable to see that the 
‘“‘rock”’ in. this verse can mean 
anything but Peter himself; nor 
do I believe that any Christian 
scholar reading the original text 
would assign to it any other mean- 
ing, if he had no special opinion 
which he was determined to main- 
tain. Some Protestant interpreters 
in their zeal against popery have 
rejected this obvious meaning. But 
it is a very dangerous practice, 
whatever be the motive, to make 
the sense of Scripture conform itself 
to our opinions, instead of making 
our opinions conform themselves to 
it. It is, moreover, difficult to see 
why Peter should not be called the 
‘‘foundation’”’ in this verse, as well 
as the Apostles in general in Eph. 
ii. 10. Scealso Rey. xxi. 14. The 
ancient fathers are but little to be 
relied on as interpreters of Scrip- 
ture; and they differ from each 
other in their interpretation of this 
verse. Augustin once held the 
ccmmon-sense view, and after- 
wards changed his opinion. But 
his second thoughts were not al- 
ways the best, seeing that he in- 
veighed against the superstitions 
of his time, and then gave the 
weight of his authority to support 
them. Ambrose also held that 
Peter was the ‘‘rock,”’ as Augus- 
tin acknowledges. ‘‘Dixi,” he 


says, ‘‘in quodam loco de Apostolo 
Petro, quod in illo, tanquam in 
petra, fundata sit ecclesia; qui 
sensus etiam cantatur ore mul- 
torum in versibus beatissimi Am- 
brosii, ubi de gallo gallinaceo ait : 

Hoc ipsa petra ecclesise 

Canente culpam diluit.” 

Aug. lib. i. Retract. xxi. 

So Cyprian, a century earlier, says, 
‘*Petrus tamen, super quem edifi- 
cata ab eodem domino fuerat eccle- 
sia, unus pro omnibus loquens 
et ecclesia voce respondens, ait, 
domine, ad quem ibimus ?—Epist. 
55, ad Cornelium. 

2The words of this apostolic 
commission, ‘‘I will give thee the 
keys,” &c., have been a favourite 
text with Papal despotism, and 
have given occasion to some very 
gross delusions. 

Protestant divines, rejecting 
these, have yet too often entangled 
themselves and their readers in 
unprofitable speculations on these 
simple words. Romanists are, at 
any rate, consistent in their error 
when they use this text as a foun- 
dation for the pretended infallibil- 
ity of their church ; for the words 
addressed to Peter do distinctly 
speak of an infallible authority ; 
and if they applied to successive 
ages of the Church, they would jus- 
tify ecclesiastical claims of the 


Ὁ CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 17 


xvi. 19)—words both of power and of authority, for he 
who has the keys given to him is both able and authorised 
to admit and to shut out; while the last part of this 
commission declares this authority to be infallible, and 
makes the Apostles words of command or solemn 
instruction the Word of God to men.’ 


The Inwarp and Outward aspect of the Church. 


This Church of the apostolic times, as in every other 
period of its history, presents an inward and an outward 
aspect. Tothe former belong the doctrines which the 
Apostles taught: the latter is exhibited in its apostolic 
form,—its institutions and laws. These two are, indeed, 
intimately connected together; for “the form of the 


Church, at any period, is a result primarily of its doc- 


trine. 


papaltype. But Protestants are in- 
consistent when, denying the claims 
of Rome, they deduce for them- 


selves from this verse a divinely- 


given church authority, which they 
call the ‘‘ power of the keys.” 
Every Church, as a lawfully con- 
stituted body sanctioned by Christ, 
has, in accordance with his will, a 
legitimate authority over its mem- 
bers, just as all other voluntary 
communities have over those who 
join them ; but it does not depend 
upon such texts as these. The 
words will justly apply to Peter and 
the other apostles alone. To them 
plone could it be said with truth, 


lis external phase in constitution and worship is, 


that ‘‘ Whatsoever they should bind 
or loose upon earth, would be 
bound and loosed in heaven.”’ 

1As Peter was specially men- 
tioned by name in this giving of the 
keys, so he is specially named when 
the keys were first used on the day 
of Pentecost to admit the believing 
Jews into the Church. It was also 
Peter who, with these keys, opened 
the door of entrance to Cornelius 
and his friends, the first-fruits of 
Gentile Christianity. With the 
same keys, again, Peter and John 
shut out Simon of Samaria from 
the Church, when his real cha- 
racter was discovered. ne 


2 


= 


18 THE APOSTLES: AND 


for the most part, the necessary fruit and effect of the 
inner principle of doctrine and creed.” (Guericke.) And 
conversely the outward form and constitution of a 
Church,—the laws or customs which regulate its worship 
and discipline,—the functions assigned to its officers,— 
the ritual observed in its devotions,—and its whole 
action as a visible Christian body,—re-act with great 
force upon its inner life,—upon the doctrines which it 
most prominently teaches,—the manner in which those 
doctrines are received and held by its individual mem- 
bers, and the whole of their religious character and state. 
Neither can such outward forms be lightly passed by on 
the ground that the real strength and essence of such a 
religion as ours is the invisible spirit of its inner life. 
For every religion, however spiritual in its nature, must 
have some outward exhibition of its truths and principles, 
—must have a visible organization, through which its 
inner life may act and be maintained, and its power duly 
exercised among men. Without these external things 
no visible Church could be gathered together or continue 
to exist,—no Christian community—and, possibly, no in- 
dividual Christian—could long preserve his religion un- 
impaired. The importance, therefore, of the external 
action in any Christian Church, though it must be con- 
fined to its own proper sphere, can hardly, within that 
sphere, be exaggerated, or too highly placed. Outward 
forms and ordinances are not, indeed, the life, yet they 
are necessary aS means and instruments of the life’s 
powers and influences. They stand related to the real 


Qe CHRISITANCCHORC 7. 19 


life and spirit of a Christian Church nearly as the organs 
of the human body do to the soul,—dead and powerless 
by themselves, yet requisite for the soul’s contact with 
the material world. And as in the man, considered as a 
creature of this world, his best and soundest condition 
is when his body, healthy and complete in every limb, 
subserves and exhibits the action of a healthy mental 
state ;—so that is the best and soundest condition of a 
Church on earth, when an external organization, healthy 
and complete in all its parts, most freely and fully dis- 
plays the working of a divine life within ;—neither by an 
excess of laws and ceremonies, causing the true spirit to 
be lost sight of in adherence to the form ;—nor by 
an opposite defect and want of forms preventing the 
spirit, from its very spirituality, from being apprehended 
by ordinary men;—nor by unauthorised, unsound, or 
questionable observances and rules giving erroneous 
views of Christian doctrine—hindering the healthy action 
of Christian feeling—unduly fettering Christian liberty— 
or distorting the fair proportions of Christian truth, which 
it is the office of the Church to cherish and make known. 

Hence in every Church a due attention to its outward 
organization,—its regulations, ceremonial, government, 
and polity in general,—is intimately connected with its 
most vital interests, and can never with safety be omitted, 
or regarded as a matter of slight and trivial concern.’ 


1 With regard to ourown Church, when it was more imperatively 
surely there never was a time called to a large and scriptural con- 
since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, sideration of such questions with 


20 THE APOSTLES AND 


For this reason the outward aspect and constitution 
of the apostolic Church, as it is exhibited in the New 
Testament, has seemed to me a subject not likely to be 
unprofitable, even when handled with no more power 
than I can hope to bring to it, and to no wider an extent 
than the limits of these lectures will allow. And in 
dwelling upon this subject I purpose at the same time 
to wander so far into the regions of the post-apostolic 
Church, as to compare, in certain striking respects, the 
institutions and practices of the apostolic age with those 
of the three following centuries,—especially that latter 
portion of them which is commonly called the Nicene 
period. 

It seems to me the more important to take this double 
view of the subject, because there is so very much in the 
aspect of Church thought and action at the present time, 
which demands from true and earnest Christian men an 
impartial and unshrinking consideration not only of the 
teaching of the New Testament, but also of the real 
teaching of the Nicene Church, and of the authority sup- 
posed to be attached to it. Notwithstanding the still 
generally acknowledged supremacy of Holy Scripture 


all earnestness and gravity. The 
dangers which hung over the 
Church of England at the begin- 
ning of the seventeenth century 
may seem to us now more alarming 
than those of the present day ; but 
the Churchmen of those times made 
light of the storm, until it burst 
upon their heads. With less vio- 


lent elements, perhaps, on the sur- 
face, but with deeper grounds of 
apprehension underneath, the na- 
tional Church, endangered from 
within and from without, is still, 
unfortunately, shrinking from that 
which alone, humanly speaking, 
could ensure its safety. 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. oa 


amongst us, the main current of Church opinion on all 
questions of polity and practice (to say nothing here of 
doctrines) has for a very considerable time been setting 
strongly towards the ecclesiastical system of the third 
and fourth centuries, to the neglect, in this respect, of 
the New Testament ; and many are carried quietly along 
with the tide, knowing little or nothing of the shore to 
which it is wafting them. The movement, which was 
commenced in our Church nearly forty years ago, and 
which has gradually extended its influence under various 
forms and phases, until it is now felt throughout our 
ecclesiastical life, was begun and carried on by men, who 
diligently and perseveringly brought to bear upon the 
public mind their stores of learning, gathered, not from 
the Apostles, but from the post-apostolic Fathers; not 
from the divinely taught Church of the New Testament, 
but from the humanly deteriorated Church of a later 
time. The opponents of this Oxford school of theology 
cried out against what seemed to be the Romanistic 
nature of its teaching ;—a considerable number of its 
teachers and disciples ended their career in the Church 
of Rome ;—and Romanizing predilections and practices © 
are still plainly seen in some of its adherents. Yet it 
was a mistake to suppose that Rome was the proposed 
object of the Oxford Tractarians’ aims or wishes. The 
accomplished leaders of that movement were no doubt 
perfectly sincere, when at an early period of their course 
they denied the charge of Rome-ward tendencies which 
“was brought against them. It was not into conformity 


"ἃ * WR APOSTLES AND 


with the Church of Rome, but into conformity with the 
Church of the fourth century, that they desired to bring 
us. it was only at a later time that some of them, dis- 
covering the end to which their accepted principles 
naturally led, but which they had not at first perceived, 
honestly went over to the Romish communion. And 
even now, after the long, and for the most part trium- 
phant, career which this Church party has pursued, it is 
only the very advanced members of it who distinctly 
hold Romanistic tenets, and long for an actual re-union 
with the Papal See. The greater number, the more 
moderate and less deeply imbued portion of the High 
Church or Anglo-Catholic school, who do not denounce 
the English Reformation as a blunder and a crime, desire 
still, with a consciousness more or less indistinct, to draw 
as near as they can, in doctrine and in practice, to the 
model of the Church, as it existed before the supposed 
commencement of the Papacy ;—or at any rate they 
entertain a great reverence for the Nicene period, as if 
the true Christian system had then reached its perfec- 
tion, and as if the doctrines and practices then in force, 
were in some way or other binding upon Christians now. 
Yes, and even with some, who do not by any means 
belong to the High Church school, there may be found 
a vague feeling that the Nicene period enjoys a kind of 
authority in the Church of England beyond that of any 
other time. And so -when “Church authority” or 
“Church principles,” instead of the teaching, or as sup- 
plemental to the teaching, of the New Testament, are 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 23 


urged upon our acceptance under the penalty of our 
being considered untrue to the Catholic Church, if we 
reject them, the Church as it was in the fourth century 
is intended. 

And all the while there is frequently a profound igno- 
rance of what the Church system at that time really was, 
and of the extent to which it had departed from the 
simplicity of the apostolic age and truth. 

In the following pages therefore some particulars of 
that Church system will be noticed in connection with 
the apostolic practices, with which they are contrasted ; 
and in the meanwhile I would observe in general terms 
respecting it, that it is not at all surprising if modern 
Anglo-Catholicism, while following the Nicene Church, 
has been popularly accused of Romish tendencies; or 
if some of the leaders or promoters of this theology have 
joined themselye® to the Papal Church. Nor is it by 
any means so extraordinary or outrageous a thing, as it 
might at first sight be deemed, when clergymen of the 
Church of England,—a Church which protests against 
Rowmish errors,—seem to conform their ministrations as 
nearly as possible to the rites and ceremonies of Rome. 
For almost all the doctrines and practices which charac- 
terize modern Romanism, are to be found only a little 
less intensified in times long before the date of what is 
considered the commencement of the Papal system ;-be- 
ginning, indeed, at the end of the second century,—mak- 
ing large growth, and gaining strength and development 
in the third and fourth,—and numbering among its ad- 


24 THE APOSTLES AND 


herents, expositors, and supporters, the greatest names in 
patristic divinity... And consequently a reverent and 
admiring study of those times, pursued to any length, 
must exert a powerful, if not an irresistible, influence in 
this direction,—an influence which naturally and neces- 
sarily lands the captivated student in something scarcely 
distinguishable from full-grown Romanism,—unless the 
New Testament is placed high and alone above all other 
authorities in his mind, and the words and deeds of the 
best and most honoured of men and Churches, are con- 
stantly brought to the test of the inspired record, and of 
the apostolic teaching in the really primitive Church. 
And as long as the Church of the third and fourth cen- 


1 Full and irrefragable proofs of 
this assertion, which may seem 
strange and incredible to some 
worthy men, are to be found in the 
ecclesiastical writers of the period. 
Our Church histories are, in this 
respect, of very little use. Bing- 
ham’s ‘ Antiquities’ (if it be an 
edition in which the original au- 
thorities are quoted at length) sup- 
plies many useful materials for 
forming a sound judgment on 
some particulars; but he passes 
too lightly over many points which 
are the most necessary for the dis- 
covery of the truth; and his ex- 
planations and inferences are often 
too innocent to be of any value. 

A large amount of most valua- 
ble information, with authorities 
quoted or referred to, is contained 
in ‘ Ancient Christianity,’ by Isaac 
Taylor, first published thirty years 


ago—an unanswerable book, which 
deserves more attention than it 
has received from English Church- 
men ; and which may be studied 
with advantgce by all who wish to 
know the source and end of 
modern Anglo-Catholicism. 

Mede’s learned work on ‘The 
Apostacy of the Latter Times,’ 
may also be read with advantage 
in connection with this subject. 

In Appendix A. I have endea- 
voured to give, within 8. short com- 
pass, a synopsis of the doctrines 
and practices which are sometimes 
thought to be exclusively Roman- 
istic, but which were maintained 
by the Christian Church before or 
at the end of the fourth century. 
The attention of the reader is 
specially requested to the proofs 
which are there given for every 
statement. 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 25 


turies is regarded with especial reverence, and its autho- 
rity over us is even partially admitted, it will be possible 
for our clergy, who desire to reproduce its system, to 
draw through it quite close to Romanism, without being 
self-convicted of unfaithfulness or dishonesty,—but on 
the contrary having many pleas wherewith to satisfy 
their own conscience, and to excuse, if not to justify, 
their proceedings. Such Anglo-Catholics often seem to 
feel that they need not go over to Rome, because they 
can thus make a Rome for themselves where they are, 
without the painfulness and scandal of a secession. 

But the opinion that we are bound dutifully to submit 
to the authority, and ought to be guided by the practice 
᾿ and example, of the Church as it was in the first three, 
four, or any other centuries, however prevalent and _ 
plausible, is delusive and ensnaring. The Church of the 
apostolic period is the only Church in which there is 
found an authority justly claiming the acknowledgment 
of Christian bodies in other times. And such authority is 
found in this Church,—not because it was possessed of a 
truer catholicity, or a purer constitution, or a more primi- 
tive antiquity, than belong to succeeding ages; for neither 
antiquity, nor purity of form, nor catholicity, confers any 
right to govern or command; but because it was under 
the immediate rule and guidance of the Apostles; and 
it is their infallible judgment alone, as exhibited in this 
Church, which has a legitimate claim to our submission.’ 


1 Pressensé says of the apostolic est toutefois une période de son his- 
age in his forcible language, ‘‘Il toire, qu’il importe de distinguer 


26 


THE APOSTLES AVY) 


Of the Church of no other period can the same be 


said, because the Apostles had no successors in their 


office. They stand alone. 


des autres ; c’est l’Age apostolique. 
Sa mission spéciale fut de con- 
server au monde le souvenir vivant 
du Christ. L’Eglise primitive est 
Vintermédiaire obligé entre nous et 
lui ; elle seule nous le fait con- 
naitre ; elle est pour nous comme 
le canal qui nous apporte l’eau de la 
source. Aussi a-t-elle recu les 
dons nécessaires a l’accomplisse- 
ment de sa mission. [len est deux 
surtout qui lui sont particuliers. 
Elle est ?Eglise de lApostolat, et 
VEglise de l’Inspiration. D’une 
part, elle est le temoin immédiat 
du Christ, et de l’autre elle a regu 
Vesprit de Dieu dans une mesure 
extraordinaire, afin de poser solide- 
ment le fondement, sur lequel 
V’Eglise de tous les temps devait 
étre assise.’’—‘ Histoire des Trois 
Premiers Siécles,’ vol. i. p. 350. 

1 ἐς Tpsius Apostolatus nulla suc- 
cessio. Finitur enim legatio cum 
legato, nec ad successores ipsius 
transit.” ‘Staple,’ quoted by Hook- 
er (Eccl. Pol. vii. § 4), who 
remarks upon it, ‘‘Such as deny 
Apostles to have any successors at 
all in the office of their Apostleship, 
may hold that opinion without con- 
tradiction to this of ours, if they 
will explain themselves in declar- 
ing what truly and properly Apos- 
tleship is. In some things every 
presbyter, in some things only 
bishops, in some things neither 


They stand alone as the 


the one nor the other are the 
Apostles’ successors.”’ 

It might with equal truth and 
force be added that in some things 
every Christian man is a successor 
of the Apostles. The Apostles 
ordained presbyters, and so do 
bishops; the Apostles preached 
Christ, and so do presbyters ; the 
Apostles believed in Jesus, and so 
do Christian men ; but all this has 
really nothing to do with the ques- 
tion whether the Apostles had any 
successors in their Apostleship. In 
all the essential powers and autho- 
rity of the Apostles’ office they had, 
and could have, none to succeed 
them. And the question is not 
fairly met and argued by Hooker. 

Indeed, in spite of the high esti- 
mation in which Hooker’ has 
always been justly held, in spite of 
his great and admirable qualities— 
his genius, learning, eloquence, 
and piety—a thoughtful and unpre- 
judiced man will hardly read 
through the whole of his ‘ Eccle- 
siastical Polity’ (which I suspect 
very few of our modern divinity 
students do), without once and 
again feeling that he is listening to 
an advocate bent upon saying all 
that can be said on one side, and 
not always having the best of the 
argument, rather than a fair inves- 
tigator of the truth ; and regretting 
that never since his time has an 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 27 


divinely inspired teachers, legislators, and rulers in 
Christ’s Church and kingdom. ‘They stand alone as 
men appointed and commissioned by Christ Himself, and 
not by man; whereas all Christian ministers since their 
time, of whatsoever order or degree, have been fallible 
men, and have been appointed and commissioned by 
man,—by the authority of the particular Church in 
which they were to ministef. 

The promise of our Lord, that He would be with the 
Apostles even to the end of the world, as it did not 
secure to them a continuance on earth beyond their own 
generation, so neither did it engage or imply that others 
with a similar power and authority should succeed them. 
With faithful preachers of Christ, and sound teachers of 
His word and doctrine, and diligent pastors of His flock, 
their divine Master has in all ages been present by His 
Spirit. But no Christian ministers having received the 
commission or inspiration of the Apostles, none of them 
could inherit the apostolic office, nor could they indivi- 
dually or in any collective body ever possess the apos- 
tolic authority. And as no Church ministers, so neither 
the Church itself of any post-apostolic time, (in what- 
ever mode we may suppose it to have uttered a united 
voice), has ever had any apostolic or divine authority to 
which after-ages owed submission. 

The opinion that such submission is due to the Church 


authoritative and impartial judge and obtained a just verdict in the 
summed up the case between cause. 
Hooker and his Puritan opponents, 


28 LAE APOSTLES AND 


of any given period, can be justified only on the supposi- 
tion that the Church of that period was infallible: that 
in fact our Lord was then so present with the visible 
Church, as to miraculously exempt it from error in the 
exercise of its legislative and administrative functions, 
in doctrine and in practice. But if so, is there any 
eround whatever for rejecting the claims of infallibility 
such as are persistently and ‘consistently put forward by 
the Church of Rome? Is there any ground whatever 
for ascribing this divine sanction to the Nicene period, 
and denying it to the modern Papacy? For surely itis | 
impossible with any show of reason or truth, to draw the 
line at any one place in the history of the Church, after 
the Apostles had been withdrawn; and to say, before 
this the Church was divinely preserved from error,— 
after this it was fallible and erred. 

Nor can the nearness of the early Church to the 
Apostles’ time be with any effect pleaded in behalf of 
its authority. For it is not being near to truth and 
wisdom that makes men true and wise. And there is 
unquestionable evidence that soon after the Apostles 
disappeared, the Church was no longer always guided 
by the spirit of truth and wisdom ; but, on the contrary, 
gradually yielded to the seductions of error,—was cor- 
rupted by its contact with Judaism, Gnosticism, and 
Heathenism, and advanced more and more along the 
downward road of superstition and formality. 

The only deference, therefore, which we owe to Church 
antiquity, as distinguished from the inspired authority of 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 29 


the Apostles, is this,—that whenever good men, either 
singly or unitedly, have said or done what is right and 
good, we should love to listen to them, and to tread in 
their steps—to follow them as they followed Christ. 
But we must use our own judgment, guided by Scrip- 
ture, reason, and experience, in deciding what is right or 
wrong in their words or deeds. | 

I appeal, therefore, from the Nicene Fathers to the 
Apostles of Christ; from patristic literature to the New 
Testament; from ecclesiastical authorities and practices 
of post-apostolic centuries to the primitive Church of the 
apostolic age. To go back to that time, and to endea- 
vour, as far as possible, to reproduce the Church of the 
New Testament, is most needful for us now, if we would 
preserve a faithful and distinct acknowledgment of 
Christian truth amongst our people. By realizing as far 
as we may the ideal of that Church in our own com- 
munity, we shall best maintain its liberty and purity— 
we shall best meet the peculiar dangers of the present 
time, and prepare for the future which is at hand.’ 


1The following words of Pres- temporaine. C’est dans cette voie 


sensé are well worthy of the atten- 
tion of English Churchmen at the 
present time: ‘‘Pour quiconque 
admet la divinité du Christianisme, 
l’Eglise de l’avenir a son type et 
son idéal dans ce grand passé qui 
remonte non pas a trois siécles, 
mais ἃ dix-huit siécles en arriére. 
Le connaitre toujour mieux pour le 
reproduire toujours plus fidélement, 
telle est la tiche de l’Eglise con- 


qu’elle trouvera la liberté et la 
sainteté, ces deux attributs si 
etroitement 1165. et qui lui sont si 
nécessaires pour s’élever & la hau- 
teur de sa vocation actuelle. C’est 
dans cette voie qu’elle accomplira 
aussi dans sa théologie ce progrés, 
que tout prépare, et que tout con- 


seille, et qui ne séra qu’une appro- 


priation plus profonde de la doc- 
trine apostolique. 


30 THE. APOSTLES. AND 


But in considering the constitution of the apostolic 
Church of the New Testament, it will be necessary to 
remark with as much precision as we can, and to bear in 
mind, throughout our investigations, the following dis- 
tinctions :—. 

1. What, according to the apostolic record, is necessary 
and of perpetual obligation in the Church. 

2. What is non-essential and discretionary, being allow- 
able and under certain circumstances the best, but not 
necessary or at all times right or desirable. 

3. What is excluded, and expressly or virtually for- 
bidden, as unsuitable to the Christian dispensation, or 
inconsistent with its essential character and design. 

From the first and the last of these expressions of the 
apostolic judgment no Church ought ever to deviate. 
It is the duty and the wisdom of all Christian commu- 
nities carefully to retain, and to embody in their eccle- 
siastical regulations, whatever the inspired teachers and 
rulers of the original Church regarded as essential; 
and with equal care to avoid in practice, and to exclude 
from their ordinances and polity, whatever is shown on 
the same authority to be alien to the Gospel principles 
or plan. On the other hand all non-essential things, 
which in the New Testament are not commanded._.or for- 


Puisse-t-elle y reussir de nos jours apostolique. Rien ne lui est plus 


moins imparfaitement que par le 
passé, et remonter dans son dogme, 
comme dans son organisation, par 
dela toutes les obscurités et toutes 
les entraves humainesjusqu’au type 


nécessaire pour les luttes solen-» 
nelles qui l’attendent.”—‘ Histoire 
des Trois Premiers Siécles,’—Pre- 
face. 


Tipe CHRISTIAN: CHORCH. 51 


bidden, or for which no obligatory form or mode has 
been prescribed, even where in some form or mode they 
must have a place, and must have had a place, in the 
practical life of every Church,—all these are left to 
the discretion and judgment of each Christian commu- 
nity. Every such community is fully authorized to 
retain, change, or discontinue any ordinance or practice 
of this nature. It is wise and good for non-essentials to 
be always distinguished from things of perpetual obliga- 
tion, and to be altered when changes, or time, or circum- 
stance require such change of ministration. It is wise 
and good for every Church from time to time to revise 
its formularies, and to consider with all gravity, but with 
all Christian freedom, whether any such alterations be 
required or no. It is very unwise, unapostolic, and un- 
Christian to bind fast what the Apostles left unbound, 
and for one Church to condemn another for differences of 
judgment in such questions. It is very unwise and hos- 
tile to the best interests of a Church to regard its regula- 
tions, its liturgy, or its other formularies, as fixed for 
ever, and virtually unalterable, as if they were the em- 
bodiment of a divine inspiration or of an express com- 
mandment, and so to refuse all change, until at last what 
was a harmless practice becomes a hurtful superstition, 
or what was once believed to be a bond of union and 
strength becomes a source of division, weakness, or dis- 
ruption. It is a valuable remark of Richard Hooker 
that, “ The superstition that riseth voluntarily and by 
degrees which are hardly discerned, mingling itself with 


32 THE APOSTLES AND 


the rites even of very divine service done to the on y 
true God, must be considered of as a creeping and 
encroaching evil—an evil the first beginnings whereof are 
commonly harmless, so that it proveth only then to be 
an evil, when some further accident doth grow unto it, 
or itself come unto further growth ... This might be ex- 
emplified even by heaps ofrites and customs, now super- 
stitions in the greatest part of the Christian world, which 
in their first original beginnings, when the strength of vir- 
tuous, devout, or charitable affection bloomed them, no 
man could justly have condemned as evil.” (Eccl. Pol. v.3.) 

Furthermore, in endeavouring to arrive at just con- 
clusions respecting the mind and will of the Apostles on 
all such questions, it will be necessary to observe not 
only what they commanded, practised, or allowed, but 
also whether these commands and practices were of 
lasting obligation, or were only of a temporary or non- 
essential character. And it will be necessary also to 
notice some things not commanded or practised in the 
Apostolic Church—the Omissions in the New Testa- 
ment. Such omissions always prove as much as this— 
that the matter in question was left to the discretion of 
future Churches to adopt or to decline it; but there are 
eases in which they lead us much further than this, 
and warrant—nay, enforce—the conclusion that what 
is omitted is in effect forbidden. 


1 See ‘Essays on the Omissions tions of them quoted in his ‘King- 
in the New Testament,’ by Arch- dom of Christ Delineated.’ 
bishop Whately, especially por- 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 33 


This negative argument from the omissions of Holy 
Writ may doubtless be rashly and illegitimately used, as 
it was most notably by the Puritans in the latter part of 
the sixteenth century ; but it ought not on that account to 
be neglected. For although many truths may be rightly 
believed, many actions in life be justly done, and many 
rites and practices in the Church be wisely adopted, 
without their being expressly sanctioned, or even men- 
tioned, in Holy Scripture, yet in all questions of which 
we know nothing except by divine revelation, or by 
the express direction of Christ or His Apostles, the 
negative argument is conclusive; and the omissions of 
the New Testament are in all such cases equivalent 
to authoritative prohibitions. 

I desire to bear in mind these considerations, as general 
principles of thought and argument, in all that I may 
have to say about the apostolic administration of the 
Church, and its bearing upon the times and questions of 
our own day. And as it is desirable in so wide a field, 
and one admitting of such various aspects, to select 
certain prominent points of view, and by dwelling on 
them to make our investigation as systematic and con- 
nected as we may, I purpose to consider the whole sub- 
ject under the following heads, each of which will be 
comprised in a separate lecture. | 

The First Organization of the Church, with the officers 
who ministered in it. 

The Origin of the Form of the Church Ministry, with 
a, further consideration of its nature and functions. 

3 


— 


34 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


The Laity, or Church body at large, with their position 
and duties. 

The Places of Christian Worship, and the manner in 
which the public devotions were conducted. 

The Sacrament of Baptism. 

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 
And lastly — 

A review of the whole subject, with special reference 
to the application of it to our own time and Church. 


ΠΕΡ ΠΕ ΈΣ IT. 


THE FIRST ORGANIZATION OF THE 
CHURCH. 


ΚΕ 


THE FIRST ORGANIZATION OF THE 
| CHURCH. 


N the very day that the Apostles received their 

full power from on high, and the divine seal and 
sanction was affixed to their authority, they began to 
organize the Christian Church. The three thousand 
converts of the Day of Pentecost, without reckoning 
those who were daily added to them, must at once have 
required some system of administration ; some regula- 
tions for their orderly guidance as the professed dis- 
ciples of Christ; some provision for their instruction in 
Christian doctrine and practice ; some arrangements for 
their meeting together as a united body, and for their 
common worship as a religious community. We could 
have had no reasonable doubt that these wants were 
supplied without delay, even if the sacred historian had 
not given us, as he has done in immediate connection 


with the first ingathering of disciples into the Church, a 
| (37) 


38 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


detailed, though very brief, account of their public or 
social religious life. 

But the moment that we look at the Apostles as the 
organizers and legislators of the primitive Church, and 
enquire how they exercised these important offices, 
we are met at once by a very remarkable circum- 
stance, presenting us with a striking characteristic of 
the Christian dispensation in the form which it was 
to assume as a new religion; and with an equally 
striking contrast to the divinely constituted form of 
the elder dispensation, which was now to be super- 
seded and pass away. The Jewish Church, as instituted 
and settled by the Mosaic Law, exhibited from the first 
an elaborate code of ordinances and regulations, pre- 
scribed by divine authority even in their minute details. 
Their priesthood was not only expressly appointed by 
a divine selection, but arranged for all their future 
generations in a course from which no man was to 
presume to deviate. The modes in which their highest 
religious worship was to be conducted were marked 
out with an unalterable precision. Their whole ritual 
with all its ceremonies was given to them for their 
invariable use, without an authority being vested any- 
where in their Church to change or interfere with it. 
And all these ordinances and statutes were at once 
recorded in a written document, that they might be 
preserved in their integrity to guide and bind succeeding 
ages. 

But the Apostles, habituated as they were to a reli- 


OF THE CHURCH. 39 


gion thus formed and ordered, adopted no such plan 
in the institution of the Christian Church. They issued 
no such orders for regulating the form of Christ’s reli- 
gion. There is no Leviticus in the New Testament. 
There are no “ Apostolic constitutions ”* truly so named. 
In all that relates to the outward life and polity of the 
Church the Apostles did not begin with promulgating 
a code οὗ laws, and then shape the new community 
into a conformity with them. Still less did they record 
a series of fixed rules for the Church Government or 
ceremonial of future times. On the contrary, they began 
with the formation of Christian communities ; necessarily 
giving them such directions as each case immediately 
required, but enforcing, as of general or permanent ob- 
ligation, only a few principles or obvious truths, which 
admitted of great variety in their practical application ; 
and leaving each community to exercise a large amount 
of independent discretion, and to develope its organiza- 
tion from within itself, if any further development should 
be needful. And they showed themselves throughout 
their whole course on earth much more solicitous to 
inculcate and cherish sound doctrine among Christian 
men, than to enjoin a precise ritual; more concerned to 
maintain a unanimity of kindly feeling and mutual 


1 The so-called ‘ Constitutiones tury, some of which are very good, 
Apostolic’ are a compilation of and might with advantage be 
ecclesiastical formularies and regu- adopted by our own Church; but 
lations of various dates, from the none of them are of apostolic 
second to the fourth or fifth cen- origin or authority. 


40 ΤῊ FIRST ORGANIZATION 


forbearance, than to require a uniformity of opinion in 
non-essentials, or of observance in outward forms. 

This remarkable feature in the original constitution of 
the Church ought never to have been, as it often has 
been, overlooked or disregarded by later times, exhibit- 
ing, as it does, the liberty, the duty, and the responsibility, 
which Christian societies should recognise in dealing 
with ecclesiastical questions; remembering that every 
particular Church in its present visible development is 
a human institution, formed and continued by man’s 
authority and laws, and by man’s authority and laws 
to be, when necessary, altered and reformed.' 

It is very desirable, however, to know and mark what 
the Apostles ordered or sanctioned in the Church of their 
own time; because whatever they appointed (whether 
designed to be perpetual or not) we may be confident 


was the very best for the time then being, and for the 


1Grave and lamentable errors 
and mischiefs have arisen, and 
must arise, from men’s confound- 
ing together, sometimes uncon- 
sciously, what is divine and what 
is human, in their conception of 
a Church—a confusion which 
tends most effectually to aggravate 
abuses, and to prevent their re- 
moval. 

It may be well maintained that 
‘The Church ” is a divine institu- 
tion, in accordance with the will 
and command of Christ, and upheld 
by His power and promises ; but 
each particular Church, whether 
uational or otherwise—however it 


may embrace a portion of this 
divine element, so far as it is faith- 
ful to Christ and Christian truth— 
is, nevertheless, in its special 
form, and in all the individualities 
of its regulations and observances, a 
work of men. ‘‘All the Church’s 
constitutions,” it is well observed 
by Hooker, ‘‘are of the nature of a 
human law” (Eccl. Pol. iii. 9), 
savouring therefore of man’s imper- 
fection ; his wisdom, or folly ; his 
perception of truth or entanglement 
in error; his passion, pride, and 
perversity, it may be, as well as 
his sound judgment, piety, and 
discretion. 


OF THE CHURCH. 41 


circumstances of those days and people. And just so 
far as the present time and the circumstances in which 
we are placed resemble them—to the same extent we 
may be equally confident that the apostolic form and 
order are the very best for us. And so far as there are 
wants in the Church which belong to every time and 
people, so far the manner in which these wants were 
met by apostolic injunctions is the best for the Church 
in every age. 

And even where our position differs from that of the 
primitive Church, and needs a different mode of treat- 
ment the more effectually to encounter new difficulties 
and forms of evil, and to bring old Christian truths to 
bear with renewed force upon modern life and manners, 
a consideration of what the Apostles ordered, or did 
not order,—of their way of dealing with their own times 
and difficulties, or their silence respecting the course 
which they pursued,—may greatly assist us, either by 
the analogies of cases which differ, or by way of sug- 
. gestion, caution, and warning, or even by showing us 
‘that our liberty in Christ is not restrained from meeting 
new requirements with new forms of Christian policy, 
and from regulating Church practices in accordance with 
the specialities of our own age. Moreover, as the Church 
is now the Church of history as well as of revelation, 
linked with the past centuries, and inheriting portions 
of their tradition, it can never be unprofitable to g0 back 
further still to the original source of all Christian truth, 
and to see whether eyen long-cherished and inveterate 


42 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


usages are conformed as much as they might be to the 
example of apostolic authority. 

A knowledge then of the mind and judgment of the 
Apostles, in matters of Church order and associated life, 
must be gained by considering what the New Testa- 
ment has recorded respecting the prescribed or per- 
mitted practice of the apostolic Church. And a con- 
sideration of the Christian ministry of that time will 
serve as a starting point in our enquiry to give us some 
insight into the general character of the ecclesiastical 
body and its common action as a Church. 

Now leaving out of view the apostolic office, which 
stands alone and separate from every other, the Christian 
ministry appears in the New Testament in two distinct 
forms. One of these had, at any rate, in some places, 
an earlier existence than the other, though both for a 
while stood as it were side by side, and acted contem- 
poraneously together, until the former gradually dis- 
appeared, leaving the other still in force to become a 
permanent institution in the Church. 

These two forms of the Christian ministry may be- 
ealled “the Ministry of Gifts,” and “the Ministry of 
Orders.” 

The Ministry of Gifts comes first. It belonged to 
apostolic times alone, when preternatural or spiritual 
gifts, Xapicuara, usually by imposition of the Apostles’ 
hands, were abundantly shed abroad in the Church. 

In the earliest part of this period it was exercised the 
most extensively, and probably in some places exclu- 


OF THE CHURCH. 43 


sively, before the ministry of the other form was sufii- 
ciently matured. 

Some of the spiritual gifts then bestowed were spe- 
cially adapted for congregational use, and the edification 
of religious assemblies. The gift of a spirit and utter- 
ance of prayer, the gifts of the “word of wisdom” and 
the “word of knowledge,” the gift of prophecy, 2.e., not 
of fore-telling future events, but /orth-telling solemn 
truths—explaining and enforcing with fervid words the 
lessons of Scripture, and Christian doctrine practically 
applied—seem to have been bestowed for the express 
purpose of supplying what must have been a pressing 
want—sound instruction, impressive exhortation, and 
fervent but enlightened prayers—in the newly gathered 
Christian congregations. 

It is evident from the circumstances mentioned by St. 
Paul in connection with the Church at Corinth (1 Cor. 
xi.—_xiv.) that the public worship there was not conducted 
by one or two ministers expressly chosen and appointed 
to the office; but any one, who possessed a spiritual 
gift available for general edification, was permitted 
either to pray or prophesy ; to address words of exhorta- 
tion, instruction, or encouragement; to lead the devo- 
tional singing with psalms or hymns of his own selec- 
tion ; to speak in a foreign language, if either he himself 


5 The difficulties connected with ed, owing probably to the want of 
some of St. Paul’s remarks about fuller contemporary information. 
the “gift of tongues” in 1 Cor. Those, however, who would repre- 
xiy. have never, as far as I am_ sent these ‘‘tongues’”’ to have been, 
aware, been satisfactorily explain- not foreign languages, but ecstatic 


44 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


or some one else interpreted his words; and in short to 
exercise his peculiar gifts with the full sanction of 
apostolic authority, and without any other restraint 
than a conformity to such wholesome general admoni- 
tions as, “ Let all things be done unto edifying,” “ Let 
all things be done decently and in order.” 

This picture of the mode of conducting public worship 
at Corinth comes before us only incidentally, and is 
given aS In consequence of certain disorders in that 
Church, which St. Paul found it necessary to reprove. 
But we can have no reasonable doubt that a similar 
mode prevailed in other Churches of the time; seeing 
that the same spiritual gifts were very widely diffused, 
and there is no intimation in St. Paul’s words that the 
custom of the Corinthians was at all confined to them. 

The ministrations of this nature were of great ad- 


them speak in our tongues,” 
ἡμετέραις yAwooais; where 


and almost incoherent utterances, 
seem to reverse the order of sound 


interpretation, and to explain away 
what is clear and plain by that 
which is obscure. The account of 
these ‘‘tongues”’ in Acts ii. makes 
it evident that they were foreign 
languages, quite intelligible to the 
natives of their respective coun- 
tries. In this chapter they are not 
called simply ‘‘tongues,” yvAw6- 
6as, but ‘‘othertongues,” ἑτέραις 
γλῴώσόαις, i. 6. different languages, 
different from what they usually 
spoke. Those who heard them re- 
marked, ‘‘We hear every man 
in our own tongue,” τῇ. ἐδίᾳ 
διαλέκτῳ; and, *‘We do hear 


γλωώσόα and 61a@Aexros are used 
as synonymous, and must mean a 
real and distinct language. And 
even in 1 Cor. xii. 10, ‘‘ divers kinds 
of tongues,” γένη γλωσόσῶν, 
intimates the same thing, although 
there is no word for ‘‘divers” in 
the original ; for γένῃ must im- 
ply an orderly diversity—different 
kinds. It surely cannot be right 
to set aside this positive evidence, 
because there is something in St. 
Paul’s brief allusions to the Corin- 
thian gifts which we cannot clearly 
understand. 


OF THE CHURCH. Sa 


vantage to the infant Church. For, although at Jeru- 
salem, while the Apostles were all there, a large number 
of congregations might have been supplied with the 
very best ministerial services at the hands of the twelve, 
and other experienced disciples of Christ; yet, as soon 
as Churches began to be multipled in other and more 
distant places, it would often have been difficult to find 
competent and trustworthy men to lead their public 
devotions, if this providential supply of spiritually-gifted 
persons had not been given to the Church. 

The possessors of these spiritual gifts were not, as far 
as we are informed, ordained or specially appointed to 
their office by any ceremony; and hence their functions 
have been sometimes represented as merely one phase 
of the operation of that universal priesthood which 
belongs to all Christians; or as the absence of all 
ministry in those times, when, as it is alleged, “all 
Christians were allowed, before the Church was fully 
settled, to preach, baptize, and expound the Scriptures 
in the Church.” But that this was really an acknow- 
ledged and authorized ministry attached to the pos- 
sessors of such gifts, and exercised because of this 
possession, and not merely a liberty indulged in from 
_ the absence of all rule, appears still more plainly from its 
not being confined to edifying ministrations in social 
worship, but extended to other spheres of labour also. 
For among the possessors of spiritual gifts are enu- 
merated not only such as those already named, but 
also “ Teachers, helps, and governments, evangelists and 


46 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


pastors,” who are expressly declared (Eph. iv. 12) to be 
“for the work of the ministry ;’ and all of whom could 
find employment for their gifts only in addressing them- 
selves to the general life of Church-members,*or in 
endeavouring to bring in fresh accessions to the flock, 
and thus exercising just such a superintendence or 
influence over Christian communities, as we commonly 
include in the idea of a well-ordered parish-under clerical 
supervision among ourselves." 

A due consideration of this “ Ministry of Gifts” in the 
earliest days of Christianity,—‘“ those times of high and. 
sanctified spiritual freedom ”’-—both shows and justifies 
the custom of the public ministration of women at that 
time in the Church. The very ground and title of this 
ministry being the acknowledged possession of some 
spiritual gift—and such gifts being bestowed on women 
as well as men—the former as well as the latter were 
allowed to use them in the Christian assemblies. This 
seems to me quite evident from St. Paul’s words in 
1 Cor. xi. 5, where he strongly condemns the practice 
of women “praying or prophesying” with the head un- 
veiled, without expressing the least objection to this 


1 It does not fall within the scope 
of these Lectures to dwell upon the 
special nature and uses of the 
different spiritual gifts, the fact 
only that they formed the basis and 
supplied the materials of the earli- 
est Christian ministry being suffi- 
cient for our present purpose. A 
full and learned discussion of these 


different yapiouara in their vari- 
ous forms, and in their probable 
relations to the more permanent 
Ministry of Orders, may be found 
in the works of Neander, particu- 
larly in his ‘ History of the Plant- 
ing and Training of the Christian 
Church by the Apostles.’ 


OF THE CHURCH. | 47 


public ministration on their part, but only finding fault 
with what was considered an unseemly attire for women 
thus publicly engaged. 

The injunction contained in this same Epistle (1 Cor. 
xiv. 34), “Let your women keep silence in the Churches, 
for it is not permitted unto them to speak,” refers, as the 
context shows, not to prophesying or praying in the con- 
eregation, but to making remarks, and asking questions 
about the words of others. The directions given to 
Timothy at a later period (1 Tim. 11. 11, 12), and for- 
bidding “a woman to teach or to usurp authority over 
the man,’ seem also to have no reference to spiritual 
eifts, and therefore to be no contradiction to what had 
been before allowed. 7 

This “ Ministry of Gifts” was, from its very nature, only 
for atime. It was liable to obvious abuses; and it did 
not contain the elements of order and sobriety in suff- 
cient strength to make it suitable for a permanent insti- 
tution. . The gifts moreover not being conferred by any 
hands but those of Apostles, the ministrations which 
depended on them must have gradually passed away. 
And long before they disappeared, the other form of 
the Christian ministry was introduced and extended 
generally throughout the Church. As this became more 
and more fully established, it was not unnatural that the 
“Ministry of Gifts”—once the glory, and, it may be 
said, the pride, of Christian congregations—should suffer 
some disparagement, and possibly should at times be 
regarded as an irregularity, or an interference with esta- 


48 LHE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


blished order. And I think there are traces of this to 
be found in the New Testament: The warnings given 
by St. Paul (1 Thess. v. 19), “Quench not the spirit,” 
and “ Despise not prophesyings,” probably point to this 
tendency, and express the Apostle’s desire that the 
possessors of such gifts might still be allowed to use 
them for the benefit of their several Churches, and receive 
a becoming attention from their hearers. 

The attempts of some Christian sects and associations 
of a recent date to re-establish this ancient form as their 
ordinary and only ministry, seem to show that they had 
forgotten the proverbial hopelessness and uselessness of 
reviving the obsolete practices of a by-gone age not 
founded on any abiding and living principle; and that 
they ignored the fact, that what made these ministra- 
tions necessary, possible, and right, in the infant Church, 
is no longer in existence now. At the same time, since 
natural gifts in an extraordinary degree, and of a kind 
most available for extensive good, are sometimes found 
even now in Christian men and women, it would seem 
that Churehes might still advantageously imitate the 
example of the apostolic age, by employing such powers 
to supplement, though not supplant, their more regular 
ministrations. 

The “ Ministry of Orders,’ which gradually superseded 
the more free and unrestricted form of Church adminis- 
tration, was exercised by men especially selected for this 
purpose, and ordained, or solemnly appointed by ecclesi- 
astical authority, to minister in their respective congrega- 


OF THE CHORCH. 


49 


tions. This ministry may possibly in some localities, 
as at Jerusalem, have been contemporary with the 
earliest labours of the Apostles; in other places it was 
introduced, or at any rate brought into full operation, 


at a later date. 


But, if we may judge from recorded 


instances of St. Paul’s practice, the Apostles ordained 


“ Hiders ” in the Churches which they founded, as soon 


as intelligent and suitable men could be found for this 


purpose;' and long before the end of the apostolic 


1 The account of the apostolical 
journey of Paul and Barnabas in 
Acts xiii., xiv. throws some light 
upon this subject. As they passed 
through the different towns on 
their way, they gathered together 
many converts, μαθητεισαντες 
ἱκανούς, On whom, doubtless, as 
in other cases, they conferred 
“ὁ spiritual gifts,’ which were at 
once available for the edification 
of the newly-formed societies. 
But when Paul and Barnabas 
Yisited these towns again on their 
return towards Antioch, besides 
encouraging the disciples by ex- 
‘hortations ‘‘to continue in the 
faith,” they ordained them elders 
for each Church or congregation, 
χειροτονήδαντες αὐτοῖς πρεό- 
βυτέρους κατ᾽ éundnoiay, to 
whom the general charge of each 
community was committed. 

The difficulty of finding men fit 
for the ordained ministry among 
bodies of Christians recently gath- 
ered from Gentile populations, and 
only just reclaimed from the debas- 
ing principles and practices of 


their gross idolatry, must, humanly 
speaking, have been very great, not 
to say insuperable. St. Paul cau- 
tions Timothy against ordaining 
‘*a novice ;” and, in modern mis- 
sions, it is found necessary to prove 
converts from heathenism for a 
long time before any of them can 
be safely admitted as candidates for 
ordination. There was, however, 
at that period, in many of the 
towns throughout the Roman em- 
pire, a class of men, prepared by 
divine providence, and better fitted 
than all others for supplying this 
need of the Gentile Churches. 

Educated and thinking men 
among the Greeks and Romans had 
for some time felt the hollowness 
and worthlessness of their old 
religions ; and the dispersion of the 
Jews in ‘‘every nation under heav- 
en,” with the Greek translation of 
their Scriptures, had brought to 
the conviction of such men that 
there was a higher and purer know- 
ledge of God to be obtained, than 
was afforded by their own poetical 
but effete mythology. Hence many 


50 


THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


age, the “ Ministry of Orders” had become a generally re- 


of them renounced polytheism and 
idolatry ; and, although they did 
not become Jews, they acknow- 
ledged and worshipped the one 
true God, joined in the services of 
the Jewish synagogue, and were 
commonly regarded by the Jews 
with a friendly feeling, though they 
were still to the Jewish mind essen- 
tially Gentiles, and Jews would not 
enter their houses or eat with them. 

These intelligent and earnest re- 
ligionists are often mentioned in 
the Acts of the Apostles—Cornelius, 
the Roman ‘‘ officer and gentle- 
man,’ and the first Gentile Chris- 
tian, being an eminent example of 
the class. They have been some- 
times called ‘‘proselytes of the 
gate,” to distinguish them from 
the Gentiles who became Jews, and 
were called ‘‘proselytes of righ- 
teousness.”” In the Acts they are 
designated by various names, sig- 
nificative of their religious posi- 
tion. Thus Cornelius (Acts x.) is 
said to have been εὐσεβὴς, not ““ἅο- 
vout,”’ asin our English Bible, but, 
as the word literally means, ‘‘ wor- 
shipping aright,” and φοβούμενος 
tov Θεὸν, ‘fearing the [true] 
God.”” Hence a mixed congrega- 
tion of Jews and these religious 
Gentiles at Antioch, in Pisidia, was 
addressed by St. Paul as, ‘‘ Men of 
Israel, and ye that fear God,” οἱ 
φοβούμενοι tov Θεόν (Acts xiii. 
16) ; and again, in verse 26, ‘‘ Men 
and brethren, children of the stock 
of Abraham, and whosoever among 
you feareth God,” ot ἐν ὑμῖν 


φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεόν. In verse 
43 of the same chap. such persons 
are termed ‘‘ religious proselytes,”’ 
GEPomEevot TPOGHAVT AL, i. 6. pro- 
selytes, as far as their worshipping 
was concerned, though still called 
Gentiles in the preceding verse. So 
also the ‘‘honourable women ” of 
this class, whom the Jews stirred up 
against Paul and Barnabas are ταὶς 
δεβομένας yovaixas in verse 50, 

Now such men were usually those 
who most readily and _ heartily 
welcomed the Gospel doctrines 
which the Apostles proclaimed. 
They had the religious knowledge 
of Jews, without their narrow- 
mindedness, formality, and pre- 
judices ; they were often men of 
good education. They had given 
proof of their love of truth, thoir 
earnestness and sincerity. They 
had already renounced the gross 
vices of heathenism. These, there- 
fore, both became the first-fruits 
of the Apostles’ labours in Gentile 
lands, and also among these they 
would find some who might almost 
immediately be entrusted with the 
ministerial charge of Christian 
congregations. And with this agree 
the words of Clement, when he 
writes to the Corinthians that the 
Apostles appointed their first con- 
verts to be ‘‘bishopsand deacons” : 
HATA χώρας καὶ πόλεις κηρυόδ- 
ὅοντες, μαθίότανον TAS ἀπαρ- 
χας αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες TH 
πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ 
διαμόνους τῶν μελλοντῶν 
πιότευεῖν .--- Clem. ad Cor.’ ὃ 42. 


OF THE CHURCH. 51 


ceived and ordinary institution throughout the Churches. 
And, as doubtless many of those who were thus formally 
ordained were also possessors of spiritual gifts, the ear- 
lier ministrations, which these gifts supplied, must 
commonly have passed into the later form without difti- 
culty or any painful change, until at last they were 
quietly merged in its permanent establishment. 

In the mean time, while both these forms of the 
ministry were in operation together, those who had 
gifts of “teaching,” and of “prophecy,” and other 
χαρίόματα of a similar nature were subject to the general 
superintendence and control of the ordained officers, 
who always acted as rulers or overseers—éxiéxox01—of 
the Christian communities, whether they themselves 
took a prominent part or not in the instructions, prayers, 
And, 
as might be expected, several different phases of the 


and other services of their religious assemblies. 


working of this double system might be seen in different 
Churches, and at different times, during the period em- 
braced by the New Testament, and before the final 
disappearance of the “ Ministry of Gifts” as a distinct 
ordinance in the Church.’ 


1 Different phases of the double 
ministry : 

1. In the Corinthian Church the 
χαρίδματα are seen in full opera- 
tion, and, it may apparently be 
said, in uncontrolled exercise. 
there were presbyters in authority 
among the Christians at Corinth, 
when St. Paul wrote his first epistle 


τ 


to them, they do not seem to have 
made any attempt to prevent or re- 
strain even the gravest disorders. 
St. Paul, indeed (1 Cor. xvi. 15), 
speaks of the house of Stephanas 
as having ‘‘ addicted themselves to 
the ministry of the Saints,” and 
beseeches the brethren, ‘‘ Submit 
yourselves unto such, and to every 


52 


THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


It is one of the marked and significative omissions in 


the New Testament, that no account is given of the first 


appointment of ordained men to minister in Church 


offices. 


But after a time the two orders of Presbyters 


(πρεσβύτεροι), and Deacons (σέάρον οἱ), appear as well- 
known titles ; and in the later books of the New Testa- 


one that helpeth with us, and la- 
boureth.” But the expressions here 
used are peculiar: ες dzaxoviar 
τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν éEXUTOVS, 
‘<they appointed, or set, themselves 
to minister ’’—words which do not 
necessarily imply anything more 
than a devoted exercise of some 
χαρίόματα for the general good. 
If they were ordained presbyters, 
their authority was here at the 
weakest. 

2.In Thessalonica, at a rather 
earlier date, both forms may be 
traced (1 Thess. v. 12, and 19, 20) ; 
but the possessors of spiritual gifts 
seem to have been losing their 
influence more rapidly than St. 
Paul thought desirable. 

3. In Ephesus, at the time re- 
ferred to in Acts xx., a united body, 
or council, of presbyters had the 
complete charge of the Church, 
and no others are alluded to by St. 
Paul in his solemn address to them 
as the overseers, ἐπίόκοποι, of the 
flock. Yet there must have been 
men there with spiritual gifts ; and 
several years later than this (1 Tim. 
vy. 17), there is a notice of presby- 
ters at Ephesus ‘‘who ruled well,” 
οἵ καλῶς προεστῶτες MPEG HV- 


τεροῖ, as distinguished from those © 


who also ‘laboured in the work 
and doctrine,’ the duties of the 
former class being supplemented, 
as we may well conclude, by men 
who had yapiouara for teaching 
and exhortation. 

4, Timothy, however, at Ephesus, 
and Titus in Crete, are directed, 
in choosing presbyters for the fu- 
ture, to take care that they be 
‘‘apt to teach ;’ the time being 
now come when it was desirable 
that the ‘‘ Ministry of Orders” 
should be carried out in its com- 
pleteness. 

«« At this later period, when the 
pure Gospel had to combat with 
manifold errors which threatened 
to corrupt it—as was especially the 
case during the latter’portion of St. 
Paul’s ministry —at this critical 
period, it was thought necessary to 
unite more closely the offices of 
teachers and overseers, and with 
that view to take care that overseers 
(éxi6xo701) should be appointed, 
who should be able by their public 
instructions to protect the Church 
from the infection of false doctrine, 
to establish others in purity of faith, 
and to convince the gainsayers.” 
--Neander, ‘The Planting of the 
Christian Church,’ Bk. 111. 5, 


OF THE CHURCH. ts 


ment their functions are alluded to as already familiar in 
the Church. 

The first occasion on which Christian Elders, or 
Presbyters, are mentioned is in Acts xi. 30, when the 
collection made for the relief of the Christians in Judea, 
against the predicted famine, was “sent to the elders 
by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” Not long after 
this the same Paul and Barnabas, on their first apostolic 
journey in Asia Minor, are recorded to have ordained 
presbyters in the different Churches which they esta- 
blished in those countries ; and the office is frequently © 
referred to in other parts of the New Testament. 

The first mention of deacons by name as a distinct 
order in the ministry is found in St. Paul’s Epistle to 
the Philippians ; and the title only occurs again in the 
same Apostle’s Pastoral injunctions in his first Epistle to 
Timothy. That the order of deacons is so seldom ex- 
pressly named is perhaps owing to the circumstance 
that the title of Presbyter, or Elder, is sometimes used 
as a general appellation for Church officers, including 
the inferior order of deacons, as it sometimes did the 
higher office of the Apostles. Thus St. Paul gives direc- 
tions to Timothy for ordaining presbyters and deacons, 
while in his similar directions to Titus he names pres- 
byters only. 

Whether deacons are alluded to at a much earlier 
period, is a question which cannot be decided with any 
positive certainty. The seven, who were selected to 
superintend the daily ministration of the tables spread 


54. THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


for the poorer Christians, were generally looked upon as 
deacons by the early post-apostolic Church, which con- 
sidered their appointment as the first institution of the 
diaconate. And from the number of those who were 
appointed on this occasion, some Churches—for example, 
the Church of Rome in the third century—confined them- 
selves to seven deacons; and when a larger number 
was required the later office of Sub-deacon supplied 
the want. And the council of Neo-Cesarea (4.p. 315) 
affirmed that this number ought to be always maintained, 
even if the Church was very large, on the ground that it 
had been so ordered in the history of their institution.’ 

But it must be observed that these seven officers are 
never called deacons in the New Testament; that they 
were selected entirely from the Hellenistic Jews, to look 
after the interest of that body, in consequence of some 
alleged neglect; and that, if they are to be regarded as 
deacons, it must be concluded that Hebrew deacons 
had been appointed before. 

It is very probable that “the young men” who buried 
Ananias and Sapphira, held the office of deacon, 
although they are not designated by this name. They 
appear, at any rate, in an official character, and when 
first mentioned they are called οἱ νεώτεροι, the word 


1 Atauovor Extra ὠφειλοῦσιν 
εἶναι HATA TOV καγόνα, UAV 
Naivv peyadaAn ein OAs 
πεισθήδσῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς βίβλου 
τῶν πράξεωνγ .--- Conc. Neo. Ces.’ 
Can. 15. 

2 All officers in the early Church 


were 4iéxov oz; and the two orders 
of ministers instituted by the Apos- 
tles seem to have been at first dis- 
tinguished as Ζιαάκονοι πρεῦδ- 
βύτεροι, and Ζιάπκονοι γεώτε- ᾿ 
pot, the elder and the younger 
ministers. Then, after a time, the 


ὃς 


OF SHE CHURCH. 55 


apparently used for deacons by St. Peter in 1 Pet. v. 5, 
and by St. Paul in 1 Tim. v. 1. If this be so, it will 
earry back the institution of the diaconate to the very 
earliest times. 

The duties which belonged to these ministerial offices 
are nowhere formally laid down in the New Testament ; 
but in the case of the presbyters in particular they may 
be gathered in some detail from the scattered notices 
which here and there occur. 

As men appointed by the Apostles under divine 
direction, and holding a sacred office approved by the 
divine Head of the Church, they were charged, “ to feed 
the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them 
overseers.”” Hence it was their duty to exercise a general 
superintendence in religious things over the body of 
Christians amongst whom they ministered, and whom 
they were to tend after the similitude of a shepherd’s 
care. In this their pastoral office therefore, they had an 
authority given to them—not as lords or masters of their 
respective congregations,’ but as those who were to be 


superior order were called by their 
specific name, πρεσβύτεροι; pres- 
oyters, while the inferior order 
Kept the generic term, Ζ τάξον οἹ; 
deacons. 

1The words used in the New 
Testament to describe the position 
and authority of Christian pres- 
byters are very significative, and 
contrast strongly with the titlesand 
assumptions of the clerical office, 
even in the third century. Besides 
ἐπίσκοποι, bishops i. 6. ‘‘over- 


seers,’’ no higher terms are used in 
the apostolic writings, [than zor- 
OTamevotand ἡγούμενοι: and 
presbyters are expressly forbidden 
to be πκαταπυριεύοντες τῶν 
Ἐλήρων (1 Pet. v. 3). The word 
ἡγούμενοι is employed in the 
same manner by Clement, in his 
Epistle to the Corinthians; and 
Justin Martyr, in the middle of the 
second century, has no higher title 
than ὁ zpoeoras for the chief 
minister in his Church. 


56 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


their guides and leaders, their pattern and example ; and 
who, without interfering with the Christian liberty of all 
Church-members, were by their position and influence to 
prevent that liberty from degenerating into disorder, 
and preserve, as much as possible, among the faithful, a 
godly unanimity in creed and life. They were, there- 
fore, themselves to hold fast, and to admonish all others 
to hold fast, the divine truths of their religion ;—to warn 
or rebuke the unruly—to support the weak—to bring back 
the wandering—to build up the faithful—and to animate 
and encourage all in godliness of living. During the 
time that the “ Ministry of Gifts” continued in operation, 
the presbyters did not necessarily take the lead in the 
public prayers and praises of Christian worshippers, or 
in the public instruction of the people by those exposi- 
tory addresses and practical exhortations which were 
comprised under the name of prophesying, and were the 
originals of our modern sermons. 

These duties might be performed by those who, with- 
out ordination, had the “ gifts” which were suitable for 
such ministrations ; though, doubtless, it was within the 
province of the presbyter to see to the orderly perform- ° 
ance of the whole service, and to make regulations to 
this effect. Hence some presbyters might “rule well,” 
though they did not “labour inthe word and doctrine.”* 

1 «Let the aidiéen! ἘΠΕῚ Palo well one text: wore ae have built 
be counted worthy ofdoublehonor, their favourite institution of ‘lay- 
especially: they who labour in the elders,” or ‘‘ruling elders,” as dis- 


Word and doctrine,” 1 Tim. v. 17. tinct from the ordained presbyters, 
On the supposed authority of this who were toteachand preach. But 


OF THE CHURCH. 


57 


But as the “ Ministry of Orders” gradually prevailed 
* over the earlier system, it more and more devolved on 
the presbyters to undertake the duties of religious 
teaching, of conducting the devotions of the people, 


this is claiming a great deal for 
what is, at the most, only an ob- 
scure allusion, while there is in the 
New Testament no other trace of 
any such distinction between one 
elder and another, as that above 
alluded’to. Neither is there any- 
thing in the records of the sub- 
apostolic Church which gives the 
least countenance tosuch a theory : 
while, after the end of the second 
century, the sacerdotalism which 
universally prevailed made it utter- 
ly impossible that such an institu- 
tion should find a place in the 
ecclesiastical system. 

The seniores plebis, or seniores 
ecclesie, in the African Church, 
mentioned by Optatus and Augus- 
tin, were evidently nothing like the 
lay-eldersin the modern sense ; nor 
were they ruling elders in that 
Church, but only persons of rank or 
respectability, who were of note and 
influence in their congregations, 
and to whom the care and custody 
of Church property was sometimes 
entrusted.—See ‘Bingham,’ B. II. 
xix., 19, and his authorities. 

The passage in ‘ Hilary’ (Ambro- 
siaster), Com. in 1 Tim. vy. 1, 
««Apud omnes utique gentes hono- 
rabilis est Senectus ; unde et syna- 
goga et postea ecclesia seniores 
habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil 
agebatur in ecclesia. Quod qua 
negligentia obsoleverit nescio, nisi 


forte doctorum desidia aut magis 
superbia,”’ is sometimes quoted in 
support of the supposed antiquity 
of lay-elders ; and Guericke, in his 
‘‘Manual of Church Antiquities ”’ 
(i. 2, 8), seems doubtful what to 
make ofit. But the testimony ofa 
Church writer of the fourth cen- 
tury, about an apostolic practice no 
longer, as he acknowledges, in 
existence, would not be worth much 
if this were Hilary’s meaning. And, 
moreover, the comment is not made 
on the 17th, but on the 1st verse 
of this chapter, which speaks of 
πρεόβύτεροι merely, and this the 
commentator takes to mean simply 
‘old Christian men,’’ as modern 
commentators often do ; and his re- 
mark is quite correct, so far as this, 
—that not only old laymen, but the 
laity in general, were in the aposto- 
lic and following times much con- 
sulted, and had great influence in 
Church matters, until priestly pre- 
tensions, and pride (as he honestly 
admits), had pushed them aside. 

Lay, or ruling-elders, may be a 
very lawful institution, sufficiently 
maintainable on the authority of 
the Church which uses it. It may 
also have been, and may still be, 
very useful for preventing or re- 
straining the growth of hierarch- 
ical propensities ; but it need not, 
and must not, claim for itself an 
Apostolic antiquity. 


58 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


and of administering all Church ordinances for the edifi- 
cation of the Church at large. And, before the death of 
St. Paul, it was required that they should be men well 
instructed in the Christian faith,—apt to teach, and able 
to exhort their flocks with sound doctrine, as also to 
convince or refute opposers of the truth, and: to stop the 
mouths of those who were already beginning to mislead 
individual Christians, and whole congregations, by dan- 
gerous errors plausibly put forth. It is therefore at this 
completed and fully developed form that we must look, 
in order to view the office of the Christian presbyter as 
it was designed and established by the Apostles, and 
bequeathed by them to the future Church. 

The duties of deacons, which are, however, very 
scantily noticed in the New Testament, appear to have 
been to render a general assistance to the presbyters in 
a subordinate capacity ; and to perform such services 
as were needful in a well-ordered Christian community, 
without being immediately connected with religious 
teaching or divine ordinances. At the same time, since 
deacons were required to be men “ holding the mystery 
of the faith in a pure conscience,” and_by using the office 
well “acquired great boldness—or rather freedom of 
speech—zappyoiav—in the faith which is in Christ Jesus,” 
we may infer that they also took some part in the work 
of instruction and propagation of Christian doctrine. 

If the seven, mentioned in Acts vi. were really 
deacons, it would follow that the special duty of this 
order was to attend to the wants of the poor, and to 


OF THE CHURCH. το 


superintend the application of the contributions for their 
relief. And in post-apostolic times this was generally 
considered to be the case, and thus deacons are called 
by Jerome, “ Attendants on tables and widows.” In 
these times also (especially after the third century), it 
was their duty to look after the morals and behaviour 
of the people, reporting particular cases to the presbyter 
or bishop. And in connection with public worship, they 
had charge of the sacred vessels used in administering 
the Lord’s Supper; and at the celebration of this sacra- 
ment they received the offerings of the congregation, and 
presented them to the officiating minister. 

In the second century, as mentioned by Justin Martyr, 
they distributed the bread and wine to the communi- 
cants; but at a later period they were not allowed to 
do so. On some occasions the deacon appears to have 
been a special or confidential attendant on the bishop ; 
not only acting as his sub-almoner and his medium of 
communication with the people, but being even sent to 
represent him at councils when the bishop himself was 
unable to attend. There is no intimation of any such 
duties as these being discharged by deacons in the New 
Testament; but in the absence of express injunctions of 
apostolic authority it was competent for any Church at 
any time to alter or add to the functions of these or any 
other officers in its service.’ 

1 Hooker, who takes it for gives the following account of the 


granted that ‘‘the seven,” in Acts functions of this order : 
vi., were the original deacons,. ‘‘ Deacons were stewards of the 


60. THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


In our own Communion the duties of the diaconate 
are in theory not very different from those which were 
most usually attached to it in the early Church; as 
appears from the description of them in our ordinal. 
But, in practice, at the present time the services of a 
deacon differ in nothing from those of a presbyter, 
except that he does not consecrate the elements at the 
celebration of the Lord’s Supper, or read “the Absolu- 


tion” in the Liturgy.’ 


He now but seldom retains the 


office for more than one year, regarding it as a mere 


stepping stone to the higher order. 


And thus the 


diaconate is stripped of its distinctive character, and 


rendered almost useless in our Church. 


Church, unto whom at the first 
was committed the distribution of 
Church goods, the care of provid- 
ing therewith for the poor, and the 
charge to see that things of expense 
might be religiously and faithfully 
dealt in. A part also of their office 
-vas attendance on their presbyters 
at the time of divine service. For 
which cause Ignatius, to set forth 
the dignity of their calling, saith 
that they are in such case to the 
bishop as if angelical powers did 
serve him. These only being the 
uses for which deacons were first 
made, if the Church have since 
then extended their ministry far- 
ther than the circuit of their la- 
bours at the first was drawn, we are 
not berein to think the ordinance of 
Scripture violated, except there 
appear some prohibition, which 
hath abridged the Church of that 


liberty. —‘ Eccl. Hol.’ v. 78. 

1 Why these two ministerial acts, 
and these alone, should be denied 
to our deacons, it seems impossible 
with any consisteney to give a 
reason. A deacon may, and often 
does, consecrate the water for bap- 
tism ; then why not the bread and 
wine for the other sacrament? A 
deacon may preach, and is often 
licensed to do so, and in so doing 
he may, and ought, to declare that 
‘“‘God pardons and absolves all 
them that truly repent, and un- 
feignedly believe His holy Gospel;” 
then why may he not read the very 
same declaration from the prayer 
book in the morning or evening 
service? Such inconsistent pro- 
hibitions, authorized neither by 
Scripture, Church antiquity, nor 
common sense, necessarily tend to 
foster superstition. 


OF AME (CHURCH. 61 


‘It was very different in the Church of ancient times. 
’ Not only were the deacon’s functions quite distinct from 
those of the presbyter, but he continued in his office for 
a much longer period, or it might be even for life. In- 
deed, deacons, from their immediate contact with their 
bishops, and from many matters of order and discipline 
being entrusted to them, together with other incidental 
circumstances in particular Churches, sometimes became 
persons of great importance, and looked down upon 
presbyters as beneath them. That this was not so very 
uncommon an occurrence may be inferred from the 
decree of the Council of Nice (and other Councils) 
against it, as well as from Jerome’s sharp remonstrance 
half a century later against certain deacons at Rome. 
And, although such conduct was an abuse of their pri- 
vileges, it shows plainly that it was by no means the 
custom then for deacons to regard their office as a 
merely temporary step to a higher ministry. And the 
same thing is further indicated by the circumstance, also 
mentioned by Jerome, that deacons chose one of their 
number and made him an Archdeacon—an office then, 
as well as now, considered superior to an ordinary pres- 
byter.’ 


1The Council of Nice decreed, 
᾿Εμμενέτωσαν οἱ διάκονοι av 
τοῖς ἐδιόις MET POLS, εἰδότες, ὅτι 
Tov μὲν ἐπισκόπου ὑπηρέται 
εἰσὶ, τῶν δὲ πρεσβυτέρων 
ἐλάττους ruyyavove1y.—Can. 
18 ‘Labbé Concil.’ vol. ii. p. 676. 

Jerome at the beginning of his 


Epistle to Evagrius, says, ‘‘ Audio 
quendam in tantam erupisse vecor- 
diam, ut diaconos presbyteris id 
est episcopis, anteferret. Nam 
quum Apostolus perspicue doceat 
eosdem esse presbyteros quos epis- 
copos, quid patitur mensarum et 
viduarum minister, ut supra eos se 


62 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


So distinct, indeed, and complete in itself was each 
one of these three orders of Deacon, Presbyter, and 
Bishop, in the earliest ages of the Church, that it was by 
no means without example for a layman to be at once 
made a presbyter, or even a bishop, as Ambrose of 
Milan was, and Nectarius, the predecessor of Chrysos- 
tom at Constantinople. In the fourth century, however, 
this was considered irregular. Decrees of councils and 
other directions were issued to restrain the practice, to 
the existence of which, however, they clearly testify. 
And by the end of that century it had become the 
established rule that the clergy should pass through the 
inferior orders to the diaconate, and so to the higher 
offices. Yet even then it seems not to have been con- 


sidered very strange for a deacon to be at once made a 


bishop.’ 


tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces 
Christi corpus et sanguis con- 
ficitur "ἢ 

And in this same Epistle, ‘‘ Quo 
modo si exercitus imperatorem fa- 
ciat, aut diaconi de se quem indus- 
trium noyerint, et Archidiaconum 
vocent.”’ 

1 A Council at Rome, under the 
Bishop Silvester I. a. Ὁ. 324, di- 
rected that no layman should be 
ordained except through the regu- 
lar degrees of lector, exorcist, 
acolyth, subdeacon, &c.—cap. xi. 
‘Labbé Concil.’ vol. ii. p. 627, 
ἐς Τὺ nullus ex laica persona ad 
honorem acolythus usque ad Epis- 
copatum sublevarctur, nisi prius 


fuisset lector annis triginta, deinde 
uno die exorcista,”’ &e. 

The Council .of Sardica (a. Ὁ. 
347) ordered that no one should be 
made bishop without having been 
a presbyter, or, at least, a deacon : 
and that no layman should be at 
once ordained deacon, or presby- 
ter.—‘ Labbé Concil.’. vol. iii. p. 
35. ‘‘ Episcopus non prius ordine- 
tur, nisi ante ex lectoris munere, 
et officio diaconi et presbyter 
fuerit perfunctus,”’ &e. 

Siricius, Bishop of Rome (A. D. 
384), directed that the clergy should 
pass regularly through all the or- 
ders, inferior and superior ; though 
even he seems not to have objected 


ΟΥ̓Χ ΗΕ 


CHURCH. 63 


And so in the New Testament there is no appearance 
of the offices of deacon and presbyter being linked to- 
gether in any necessary or indispensable succession ; nor 


is any instance mentioned of a promotion from one to 
the other. St. Paul, indeed, observes that, “they who 
have used the office of a deacon well purchase to them- 


selves a good degree βαθμὸν ἑαυτοῖς καλόν περι- 
ποιοῦνται,, 1.6., gain an honourable standing or position— 


“and great boldness in the faith;” but he does not inti- 
mate that they were, or ought to be, selected as pres- 


byters. 
In Churches which, like 


to a bishopric being conferred 
upon a deacon ; while condemn- 
ing the practice of making laymen 
presbyters. Siricius says : 

“¢Qne who has devoted himself 
to the Church from his infancy, 
ante pubertatis annos baptizari et 
lectorum debet ministerio sociari ; 
then when he is thirty years of age 
acolythus et sub-diaconus esse debe- 
bit ; post que ad diaconii gradum. 

εν accedat ; ubi si ultra quinque 
annos laudabiliter ministrarit cong- 
rue presbyterium consequatur. Et 
inde post decennium Episcopalem 
cathedram poterit adipisci.” 

**Tfany one entered the ministry 
when more advanced in life, jam 
etate grandzvus ; he was still to 
be made first of all lector aut exor- 
cista ; then acolythus et subdiaconus 
fiat, et sic ad diaconatum, si per 
hee tempora dignus judicatus fue- 
rit, provehatur. Exinde jam 


our own, have retained the 


accessu temporam presbyterium vel 
Episcopatum....... sortietur.—-. 
‘Ep. ad Himerium 1, Labbé Con- 
cil.’ vol. iii. p. 669. 

1 Τὸ should however be noticed 
that at a later period βαθμὸς, as 
used in this text, seems to have 
been taken to mean a degree or step 
in the way of promotion, since the 
prayer at the ordination of a dea- 
con, given in the ‘Constitutiones 
Apostolicz,’ ends with the words, 
παταξίωσον αὐτὸν εὐαρέστως 
λειτουργήσαντα τὴν ἐγχείριό- 
θεῖδαν αὐτῶ διακονίαν ἀτρέ- 
ότως, ἀμέμπτως, AVEYUANTOS, 
μείζον οΚς ἀξιωθῆναι βαθμοῦ “to 
be thought worthy of a higher de- 
gree orstep”’ in the ministry—i.e., 
I presume, to be made a presbyter. 
In St. Paul’s words, however, there 
is no comparison used to corre- 
spond with μείζονοϑξ. 


64 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


three orders, it surely is desirable that each one of them 
should have a special character and service of its own. 
At the present time, if our diaconate were made a real 
office instead of a name—if it were understood that it 
would not, as a matter of course, or even usually, lead to 
any higher ecclesiastical position, and if our Church 
would decide, as it has full authority to do, that 
deacon’s orders at any rate should not be indelible, or 
incompatible with secular occupations—perhaps the 
wants of extensive parishes might be more easily met, 
and the spiritual destitution of our populous towns be 
encountered with more hopefulness. 

Our view of the ancient diaconate will not be com- 
plete without noticing that it included women as well as 
men. As deacons are not often expressly named in the 
New Testament, it is not surprising that deaconesses are 
still more rarely mentioned. Yet one distinct instance 
at any rate occurs, not obvious, indeed, in our English 
version, but evident in the original. Phcebe, who in 
Rom. xvi. 1, is termed “a servant of the Church in Cen- 
chrea,” was a deaconess—ézaxovos. And if a place com- 
paratively so unimportant as Cenchrea had a deaconess 
to minister in its Church, it can hardly be possible that 
_ other more populous towns, with larger Christian com- 
munities, should not also have been supplied with the 
same female ministry. And is it not highly probable 
that “'Tryphcena and Tryphosa” with “the beloved 
Persis,’ who are named in this same chapter as labouring 
in the Lord, just as presbyters in 1 Tim. v. 17 are said 


OF THE CHURCH. 65 


to “labour in the word and doctrine,” were regularly 
appointed ministers in their Church ?? 

In the post-apostolic Church the office of deaconess 
was for a long time continued, especially in the Eastern 
portion of it, where the greater seclusion of the female 
sex, which ordinarily prevailed, made the ministrations 
of women more requisite than in the Western popula- 
tions. The deaconesses at first were commonly widows 
past middle age ; indeed by Tertullian and others their 
office is called “the Widowhood” (viduatus), and the 
Church at that time seems to have regarded the widows 
mentioned in 1 Tim. v. as deaconesses, and to have acted 
according to the directions there given in their appoint- 
ment. In the early times the deaconesses were formally 
ordained by imposition of hands ; but after the middle of 
the fourth century this was thought undesirable ; after 
which the office appears*to have received less considera- 
tion than formerly, and was gradually laid aside alto- 
gether, disappearing in Western Europe earlier than in 
the Greek Church, where deaconesses were still found at 
the end of the 12th century. 


1 Whether ‘‘the elder women,”’ 
and ‘‘the younger,” πρεόβυτέρας 
and vewrépas, in 1 Tim. v. 2, may 
be considered female ministers, cor- 
responding with presbyters and 
deacons, is at the best too uncertain 
for this passage to be adduced in 
evidence. For, in the first place, it 
is doubtful whether πρεόβυτέρῳ, 
and vewrépovs in the preceding 
verse, are used in an Official sense ; 


and, secondly, in the parallel pas- 
sage of Titus ii. 2, 3, the non- 
official words πρεόβύτας, πρεό- 
βύτιδας, and véas, seem to Ge- 
cide the question in the negative. 
The ‘‘ Pastor of Hermas”’ prob- 
ably alludes to a deaconess, when a 
woman named Grapté is men- 
tioned ; καὶ Γραπτη μὲν νουθε- 
τήδσει τὰς χήρας καὶ TOVS 
ὀρφαν οὐς.--- Βοοῖς i. Vis. ii. 4. 


2 


66 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


This ancient institution has in later times been revived 
in an analogous form by the Moravian brethren; and 
very recently in our own Church the proved value of 
ministering women has in some few instances led to a 
similar revival. This practice, if carried out with judg- 
ment and an unostentatious simplicity, may in some 
places be productive of good. But in general the reasons 
for discontinuing this office are equally valid against 
restoring it; and what is needed in order to meet the 
crying wants of the present age is not so much an in- 
crease in Church officials, as m the sound and self-deny- 
ing unofiicial ministrations of Christian men and women. 

The offices of sub-deacon, acolyth, and other inferior 
orders of the clergy, which began to appear in the third 
century, were added one after another, as the ecclesias- 
tical system became more complicated and formal; but 
these had no place in the Church of the New Testament, 
—their services, so far as they were needed, being per- 
formed by the deacons or by lay members of the con- 
eregations. 


In order to obtain a correct conception of the Christian 
ministry in its primitive state, it 1s necessary to distin- 
guish clearly between what the Apostles themselves 
established in the Church, and what was afterwards found 
to be expedient as a further development of their polity. 
That which may justly claim to be a legitimate and 
beneficial extension of apostolic order must not on that 
account be confounded with ordinances of apostolie in- 


OF THE CHURCH. 67 


stitution. I have, therefore, thought it necessary to omit 
all notice of Episcopacy in considering the offices of 
presbyters and deacons. These were established in the 
Churches by the Apostles themselves ; while the episco- 
pate, in the modern acceptation of the term, and as a 
distinct clerical order, does not appear in the New 
Testament, but was gradually introduced and extended 
throughout the Church at a later period. | 

That it was perfectly lawful for the post-apostolic 
Church to adopt the episcopal form of ecclesiastical 
government can be reasonably doubted by no one who 
believes the Church itself to be a lawful, not to say 
a divine, institution. That the establishment of epis- 
copacy was proved to be a good thing in its effects and 
influence, and may therefore so far be said to be 
of divine origin, because, in the words of Richard 
Hooker, “Of all good things God Himself is the 
author,” and “ All things are of God which are well 
done,” cannot justly be questioned. That, our Lord 
having directed that His disciples should be gathered 
into religious societies, and His apostles having carried 
out His directions, all lawful exercise of the powers of 
such societies is sanctioned by Christ Himself, as well 
as, by His Apostles—is a position which may be indis- 
putably maintained. 

But, unfortunately, not contented with such indis- . 
putable, just, and reasonable sanctions, writers on Church 
matters in all ages have too often evinced a tendency to 
represent the regulations of their own time as precisely 


68 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


those which were made at the beginning ;* and to insist 
upon referring to the actual institution of the Apostles, 
or even the personal appointment of Christ Himself, all 
the existing ordinances of their own Churches. And 
thus after the general establishment of episcopacy, it 
was often assumed and asserted that this ordinance 
emanated immediately from these sources; and the 
more the powers of bishops were enlarged beyond all 
that savoured of the apostolic age, the more boldly was 
a direct apostolic constitution claimed for their position 
and authority. 

Such assertions put forth in the early centuries of 
Christianity have often been repeated even by learned 
men in later times without any sufficient examination of © 
their correctness, and of the evidence—or the lack of evi- 
dence—on which they rest ;? and the unlearned, if they 
have indulged in any thought on the subject, have com- 


1 Bingham, in the Preface to his 
learned ‘ Antiquities,’ justly repro- 
bates this tendency of Church 
writers ; without, unfortunately, in 
his following pages being altoge- 
ther free from its influence himself. 

2 Bingham, and others, some- 
times take the assertions of men 
who lived one, two, three, or more, 
centuries after the Apostles’ time 
—assertions made without any 
proof at all—as if they sufficiently 
substantiated any statement re- 
specting apostolic practices or 
commands. 

Thus Bingham informs us that, 


‘The ancient writers of the Church 
derive the original of bishops from 
divine authority and apostolical 
constitution,” and quotes their 
assertions to this effect without the 
least investigation of their correct- 
ness : whereas the accounts given 
of the first century by men who 
lived in the third or fourth were 
always more or less affected by the 
then prevailing notions and prac- 
tices, and often merely prove that 
their authors took for granted that 
what was established and acknow- 
ledged in their own time had been 
so also in the apostolic age. 


OF Tie CHERCT. 69 


monly taken it for granted that such assertions have 
been fully proved, and that there is no reasonable doubt 
whatever to be entertained respecting them. The asser- 
tions themselves, however, as they appear in writers at 
the end of the second and in the following centuries, 
are sometimes obviously incorrect in matters of fact 
recorded in the New Testament; sometimes mere sup- 
positions more or less extravagant of their respective 
fashoxs. or vague traditions current at the time ; and 
the only attempted proof is a reference to lists of bishops 
‘in different Churches, beginning with the names of those 
who were said to have been settled there and consecrated. 
by the Apostles, and reaching down to some later date. 
But these lists are of little or no historical value, and 
cannot be relied upon for the earliest names, which 
alone are of any importance. If any one Church had 
possessed an authentic and trustworthy catalogue of 
this nature, we .might justly expect to find it in so 
important a Church as that of Rome. But the cata- 
logue of the earliest Roman bishops exhibits so many 
variations and contradictions, as it is recorded by dif- 
ferent authors, that it is evidently of no authority 
whatever. Indeed, the only authentic accounts of suc- 
cessive bishops, which anywhere existed, were those 
which were recorded by their contemporaries in the 
Church books, called Diptychs, and kept for such pur- 
poses. But there is no mention of such books before 
the-fourth century, and the Archives of Churches, sup- 
posed to have been kept from the very beginning, were 


70 


THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


nothing but oral traditions, most doubtful, when most 


confidently affirmed.’ 


1The following are some exam- 
ples of the testimony of the early 
Fathers respecting the apostolic or 
divine institution of episcopacy. 

Irenzeus (about a. Ὁ. 180), the 
earliest of the authorities cited, 
says that bishops and presbyters 
from Ephesus and the neighbouring 
cities came to meet St. Paul at 
Miletus. ‘‘In Mileto convocatis 
Episcopis et Presbyteris qui erant 
ab Epheso et reliquis proximis civi- 
tatibus.” —Lib. iii. 1. Although it 
is evident, from Acts xx. that they 
were presbyters only; and noth- 
ing is said about ‘other cities.”’ 
Irenzeus, however, inserts these 
because a number of bishops, in 
his sense of the word, could not 
have come from Ephesus alone. 

For the evidence of Tertullian 
and Clemens Alexandrinus, see 
Note, page 71. 

The great reverence entertained 
by the Church at Jerusalem for 
James, the Lord’s brother, and the 
eminence which he evidently held 
there, naturally led those, who 
fondly painted the past with the 
colours of the present, to assert 
that he was the first Bishop of Jern- 
salem ; but even this is not enough 
for the Fathers of the fourth cen- 
tury ; thus Epiphanius (about a. Ὁ. 
370) declares that St. James was not 
only the first Bishop, but that Christ 
committed to him his own throne upon 
earth ; πρῶτος οὗτος εἴληφε τὴν 
nabedpav τῆς ἐπιόποπῆς ᾧ 


πεπίστευκε Κύριος τὸν θρόνον 
αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πρώτῳ. 
‘Heres,’ 78, ὃ 7. 

Chrysostom also affirms that St. 
James was made Bishop of Jerusa- 
lem by Christ himseif ; ἔπειτα ὥφθῃ 
᾿Ιακώβωῳ, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, τῷ ἀδελ- 
Pe ἑαυτοῦ, αὐτὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν 
λέγεται κεχειροτονηπόν AL, UAL 
ἐπίσκοπον ἐν “Ἱεροδολύμοις 
πεποιηκέναι πρῶτον .--- Hom.’ 
78, in 1 Cor. αν: 

Chrysostom further asserts, that 
the presbytery which laid hands on 
Timothy must have been bishops. 
Why so? Because Timothy was a 
bishop, and therefore could not 
have been ordained by presbyters ! 
οὐ yap ἂν δὴ πρεσβύτεροι 
émiGuomov ἐχειροτόνησαν .--- 
‘Com.’ in Phil. i. ; also, referring 
again to the same circumstance, 
he says, ov περὶ πρεόβυτέρων 
φησὶν évravia, ἀλλὰ epi 
ἐπιόκόπων, οὐ yap δὴ πρεόδ- 
βύτεροι τὸν ἐπίόκοπον ἐχειρο- 
rovovv—‘Com.’ ἴπ 1 Tim. v. 14; 
‘Hom.’ 13—perverting the words 
of St. Paul to suit the ideas of his 
own time. 

The same tendency to thrust the 
Church usages of later times upon 
the apostolic age, without regard to 
the facts of the case, is seen in the 
assertions made by several writers, 
that the Apostles John and James 
(the Lord’s brother), and even St. 
Mark were made Jewish high 
priests, the title of high priests hav- 


OF THE CHURCH. 


7 


The argument put forward in more modern times for 


proving the episcopate to 


ing been given to bishops from 
the beginning of the third century. 
Thus Eusebius, quoting from Poly- 
crates, who lived at the very end of 
the second century, says, lwavyys 
. .. ὃς ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς TO πέτα- 
λον MEMOPEKDS, καὶ μάρτυς 
καὶ διδάσκαλος, ‘H. EH.’ v. 24, 
the πέταλον being the gold plate 


be an apostolic or divine 


phanius also says of St. James, 
οὗτος Ιάπωβος καὶ πέταλον 
ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐφόρει, Heres, 
78, ὃ 14.. For the story about St. 
Mark, see ‘Bingham,’ ii. 9, 5. 

What then is the value of any 
amount of testimony of such a ᾿ 
character as the foregoing ? 

The following are the lists of the 


on the high priest’s mitre. Epi- first bishops of Rome, given by— 
Trenceus. Tertullian. Augustin. 
1. Peter. 1. Peter. 1. Peter. 
2. Linus. 2. Clemens. 2. Linus. 
3. Anacletus. 3. Linus. 3. Clemens. 
4, Clemens. 4, Anacletus. 4, Anacletus. 


Eusebius gives fhe same list as 
Trenzeus ; and, living much later 
than he, when the traditions had 
gathered accretions by time, and 


Thus, to say nothing of St. Peter 
at the head of the list, even so 
well-known a name as Clemens is 
' placed in three different positions 
in different accounts, appearing 
as second, third, and fourth. Bing- 
ham remarks upon this discrep- 
aticy, that ‘‘it is easily reconciled 
by learned men, who make it ap- 
pear that Linus and Anacletus died, 
while St. Peter lived, and that 
Clemens was ordained their succes- 
sor by St. Peter also” (ii. 1, 4.) 
It is a very easy expedient in a 


eereee 


eoeeesee 


the ignorance of those who handed 
them down was greater, he under 
takes to give the exact dates of 
their episcopates, thus— 


to 68 A. D. 

from 68 “" 80 
Sei Bele Sey ΟΣ 
92 ““ 101 


story to kill off personages who 
are in the way, but in this case the 
explanation is worthless, besidesits 
being a mere conjecture of modern 
date ; for the lists must be still 
equally due to varying and errone- 
ous traditions; and the date of 
Clemens in Eusebius is quite 
irreconcileable with it. Was St. 
Peter living in aA. Ὁ. 92? 

An ingenious explanation of the 
confusion in these lists of the early 
bishops of Rome solves the discre- 
pancies, at the same time that it 


{ς 


6é 


66 ςς 


72 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION te 


institution, from the Apostles themselves having been 
(as it is alleged) the first bishops, has more appearance 
of truth and validity, but in reality helps to establish the 
very opposite conclusion. For as the Apostles exercised 
all, and more than all, the authority which legitimately 
belonged to the episcopal office in after-ages, there were 
not only no bishops then, but not even any need or 
room for their appointment. 

But if we turn from such questionable arguments, to 
take our stand upon more solid ground, I venture to 
think that the following conclusions are supported by as 
strong historical evidence as such a subject can well 
demand. 

1. Firstly, the only bishops mentioned in the New 
Testament were simple presbyters; the same person 
being a “bishop ’—ézicxoros, ἴ.6., ἃ Superintendent or 
“ overseer,’ from his “ taking an oversight” of his con- 
sregation, as is distinctly shewn by Acts xx. and other 
passages ; and a presbyter—zpeofurepos or elder, from 
the reverence due to age. It may, however, be observed 
that the office of elder is of Hebrew origin; while the 


utterly destroys the value of this Thus Pressensé says ‘‘ Clement 


catalogue as an evidence of episco- 
pacy. Itissuggested that Clement, 
Linus, and Anacletus were all pres- 
byters together, and were therefore 
bishops only in the New Testament 
sense ; that Clement survived his 
two colleagues, and, from having 
been the companion of St. Paul, 
had a moral authority in the 
Church above the other elders. 


a partagé la direction de lEglise 
avec Linus et Anaclet, qui ont été 
évéques ou anciens en méme temps 
que lui. Aprés la mort de ses col- 
légues, il demeura le seul ancien 
de l’époque apostolique, et fut par 
conséquent investi d’une autorité 
morale toute particuliére.”—Vol. 
ji. p. 387. 


OF THE CHURCH. 73 


term “bishop ’—éziexoros—is Hellenic, and is applied 
in the New Testament only to the officers of Geutile 
Churches, though it did not supersede the use of the 
word presbyter among them.’ 

2. Secondly, Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, 
were delegated by St. Paul to perform for him what we 
might call episcopal functions, in ordaining, superintend- 
ing, reproving, or encouraging the ministers of those 
Churches, as well as endeavouring to promote the general 
well-being of the Christian communities there. But they 
are never called “bishops,” or any other name which 
might indicate a special order or ecclesiastical office. 
Their commission was evidently an exceptional and 
temporary charge, to meet some peculiar wants in those 
places during the necessary absence of St. Paul; and 
there is no intimation of any kind that such appoint- 
ments were of general necessity—no intimation that 
they were needed; or that they were made, or ought 
to be made, in any other Churches of the time. Never- 
theless, the authority thus delegated to Timothy and 
Titus may justly be considered the embryo of the 
episcopacy of the following age, or the pattern which 
the Churches probably followed when it was found 
desirable to establish an order superior to that of the 
presbyters, and which may have suggested the nature 


1The word ἐπίσηοπος was well superintending authority in cities 
known in classical Greek. It sig- of their ‘‘subject-allies,”’ and corre- 
nified in particular the civil officer sponded with the Lacedemonian 
sent by the Athenians to exercise a term dpyoorys. 


74 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


and measure of the functions and authority which were 
committed to their bishops at the first. 

And if it be thought that this in fact supplies an 
apostolic origin to the episcopal order, the admission 
may be so far made in this limited sense—an Apostle 
having suggested the idea, and the Churches afterwards 
on their own authority having adopted and embodied 
it in their ministry. 

3. Thirdly, the tradition alluded to by Tertullian, and 
more strongly noticed by Clement of Alexandria,’ that St. 
John after his release from Patmos established bishops in 
the different Churches around Ephesus, suggests a very 


interesting step in the rise and progress of episcopacy, 


1The reference in Tertullian is 
very brief, ‘‘ Ordo Episcoporum ad 
originem recensus in Johannem 
stabit auctorem.’”’— ‘Adv. Mar- 
cion,’ iv. 5. 

Clemens Alexand. writes more 
atlength : ἐπειδὴ, τοῦ τυράννου 
τελευτήσαντος, ἀπὸ τῆς Πατ- 
μου τῆς νήσου μετῆθεν ἐπὶ 
τὴν Ἔφεσον, ἀπήει TAPAKA- 
λούμενος καὶ ἐπὲ τὰ πλησιό- 
yopa τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὅπου μὲν 
ἐπιόσκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου 
δὲ ὅλας éuxdnotas ἁρμόδσων, 
ὅπου δὲ κλῆρον, ἕνα τέ τινὰ 
Ἠληρώσων ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεῦμα- 
τος δσημαιῖνομένων.--- Quis Di- 
ves Salvetur,’ ὃ 42. 

The words are part of a story 
which Clement honestly says has 
been handed down only by tra- 
dition, and which he fears may be 
regarded as fabulous. He intro- 


duces it with ἄκουσον μῦθον ov 
μῦθον ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον περι 
᾿Ιωὡάνγνου τοῦ ἀποόστόλουπαρα- 
δεδομένον καὶ μνήμῃ πεφυ- 
λαγμένον. And the quotation 
above given is followed by the story 
of a youth, whom St. John com- 
mended to the care of one of these 
bishops, and who afterwards be- 
camearobber. St. John, however, 
went to him to reclaim him ; and, 
with very questionable theology, 
assures him, that there is still hope 
forhim. ‘‘ForI,” said he, ‘‘ will 
account to Christ for thee ; I will 
bear thy death for thee, as the Lord 
did for us:” ἐγὼ Χριστῷ δώσω 
λόγον ὑπὲρ Gov ‘av dén, τὸν 
σὸν θάνατον ἑκῶν ὑπομενῶ, 
ὡς ὁ Κύριος τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν: 
ὑπὲρ Cov τὴν ψυχὴν ἀντιδώσω 
τὴν ἐμήν. 


OF THE CHURCH. 75 


and its relations to the earlier polity. And it may 
probably have had a basis of truth. For the Churches 
in Asia Minor seem to have been the first to exhibit the 
episcopal form of Church government; and the state of 
things at that time may naturally have led St. John to 
repeat, and perhaps enlarge, what St. Paul had done 
many years before at Ephesus and Crete. But this 
tradition indicates that at any rate at the end of the 
apostolic age, when St. John was probably the only 
surviving Apostle, the order of bishops had not pre- 
viously been called into existence. The tradition itself 
appears for the first time a hundred years or more after ᾿ 
the alleged events, and is too brief and obscure for 
anything more than historical conjectures. Moreover, 
whatever St. John may have found it desirable to do, he ~ 
did not think it necessary to record or refer to it in any 
of his canonical writings, nor is there any reason to 
suppose that he gave any general instructions on the 
subject to the Church at large. | 

4, Fourthly, there is evidence of the most satisfactory 
kind, because unintentional, to the effect that episcopacy 
was established in different Churches after the decease of 
the Apostles who founded them, and at different times ; 
—some Churches being considerably later than others 
in adopting this form of government. Thus there was 
evidently no bishop over the Church at Corinth, when 
Clement wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians* some 


1Clement wrote his Epistle to disorders in that Church ; and his 
the Corinthians on account of the special complaint against them is 


76 


time after the 


THE FIRST ORGANIZATION = 
death of St. Paul. In the time of 


Ignatius, at the beginning of the second century, there 
were several Asiatic bishoprics; Ignatius himself being 
Bishop of Antioch, while Onesimus of Ephesus, and 


their conduct to their presbyters. 
They had got up factious parties 
(6ra6e1s) against their presbyters 
(§ 47): they had even dismissed 
from their office presbyters, who 
had been regularly appointed, and 
who had blamelessly discharged 
their duties (44); he exhorts them 
to live at peace with their pres- 
byters (54); and to submit to their 
_presbyters (57). And not only does 
he say nothing about a bishop, or 
any one officer in authority over the 
presbyters, but if there had been a 
bishop in the Corinthian Church, it 
is impossible that the people could 
have acted as they did, without the 
bishop’s authority being utterly set 
at nought, and a still graver cause 
of complaint being created, which 
Clement must have noticed. 

Clement mentions the two orders 
of Presbyters and Deacons, some- 
times calling the former ἐπίσηοποι 
(§ 42) after the manner of the New 
Testament ; and he seems to know 
of no other. 

Those, indeed, who are deter- 
mined to find ‘‘bishops” in the 
apostolic age, profess to find them 
hidden under the words ἡγούμενοι 
and pony οὐμεὲν ovin two passages 
of this Epistle ; namely— 

“Τοῖς γομίμοις τοὺ Θεοῦ 
ἐπορεύεόθε, ὑποτασόδόμεγνοι 
τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμών, παι 


τιμὴν τὴν καθήκουσαν ANOVE- 
μοντες τοῖς map ὑμῖν πρεδ- 
βυτέροις, νέοις τε μέτρια nat 
δεηνὰ γοξῖν ἐπετρέπετε, 
γυναιξίν re ἐν ἀμύμῳ παῖ 
δεμνῇ καὶ adyvyn συνειδήσει 
πάντα ἐπιτελέϊν παρηγγέλ- 
Aere. § τ And Tov Κύριοι 
᾿Ιηδοῦν Χριστὸν, ov τὸ αἷμα 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη, ἐντραπῶμεν, 
τοὸς προηγουμένους ἡμῶν 
αἰδεσθῶμεν, τοὺς πρεδβυτέ- 
ρους ἡμῶν τιμήδωμεν, τους 
γέους παιδεύδσωμεν τὴν Mat- 
δείαν Tov φόβου Tov Θεου, τας 
γυναῖκας ἡμῶν ἐπι τὸ ἀγαθὸν 
σιορθωσώμεθα. ὃ 21. 

But it must be observed that 
both. these passages, so similar to 
each other, evidently refer to the 
common relative duties of life; 
duties owing to persons in authori 
ty,—to our elders—to our children 
and wives: and-they may be com- 
pared with 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, and 
Titus ii. 2-6. 

If Church authorities are here al- 
luded to at all, they are not bishops, 
but presbyters, called 7y ovyevor, 
as they are in the New Testament. 

To say that nyovuevor, being 
plural, means a series of Corinthian 
bishops, past and present, is a 
mere contrivance to prop up a pre- 
conceived opinion. 


OF THE CHURCH. 


77 


Polycarp of Smyrna, are mentioned by name in his 
genuine epistles. But some years later, when Polycarp 
wrote his Epistle to the Philippians, there was no bishop 


over the Church at Philippi.’ 


And, later still, in Justin 


Martyr's account of Christian worship in his time only 


two orders of ministers are seen, with no allusion to any 


other, even under circumstances which a century or less 


later would necessarily have introduced the services of a 


bishop.? 


1 The proof from Polycarp’s Epis- 
tle to the Philippians, is similar to 
that from Clement to the Corin- 
thians; namely, that under the 
circumstances, it is morally impos- 
sible that the bishop should have 
been unmentioned, if there had 
then been one in that Church. 

Polycarp addresses exhortations 
to the people, to the deacons, and 
tothe presbyters. In particular he 
urges the Philippians to submit 
themselves to the presbyters and 
deacons —vz0racdGouéevovs τοῖς 
πρεδβυτέροις καὶ διακόνοις; 
ὡς Θεῷ nai Xpidra—but he 
mentions no bishop. Was no 
Obedience due to him, if he had 
been there ? 

The learned Hefele, in his edi- 
tion of the ‘ Patres Apostolici,’ has 
a curiously characteristic note on 
these words, namely, ‘ Policar- 
pus episcopi non facit mentionem, 
quippe qui verecundia impeditus 
eum nollet cohortari!’ But, how- 
ever great his verecundia, would it 
have been any mark of disrespect 


to the bishop to exhort the people to 
obey him? Ignatius had thought it 
no disrespect to Polycarp to write 
τῷ ἐπιόκποπῳ προδέχετε iva 
καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν; ἁπὰ ἀν τίψυχον 
éy@ τῶν ὑποταδδομένων τῷ 
ἐπιόκμόπῳ, πρεσβυτέροις, δια- 
HOV OLS. 

2 Justin Martyr mentions only 
two kinds of ministers ; and in par- 
ticular in the account of the cele- 
bration of the Lord’s Supper, he in- 
troduces only ὁ zpoe6rws and oi 
d1auxovo1r; thus, προδφέρεται 
τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν 
ἄρτος παι ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ 
UPAMLATOS, . . εὐχαριότήδαντος 
O€ TOV MpPOEOTWTOS, . . . Ot 
κπαλούμεγνοιπαρ᾽ ἡμῖν διάπον OL 
διδόασιν ἑκαστῷ τῶν παρον- 
τῶν μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
εὐχαριόστηθέντος ἄρτου, καὶ 
οἴνου και ὕδατος. --- ‘Apol.’ i. 
§ 85, also 87. 

If it be contended that ὁ zpoec- 
75 here is a bishop, then the pres- 
byters are entirely omitted. Were 
there none of them in Justin’s time? 


78 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


The author of the ‘Herme Pastor, who probably 
lived after the middle of the second century, knew only 
the two orders of presbyters ‘and deacons; though he 
alludes, with disapprobation, to a tendency then exist- 
ing towards episcopacy, or a pre-eminence among pres- 
byters. The “bishops” whom he mentions, like those 
in the New Testament, were only presbyters taking the 
oversight of Churches.’ 

Before the end of the second century, however, the 
episcopal form was probably established by general 


consent in all the churches of the Roman empire. 


The causes of this change, or rather development, of 
the apostolic form of the Christian ministry are not 
doubtful, or far to seek. The want of united action 
among the different presbyters of the same Church, 
when they were all of equal authority, and there was 


no official superior to control or direct them; the dis- 


Or was there ever a Church with a 
bishop and no presbyters ? 

1 In the ‘Herme Pastor’ occur 
such expressions as συ δὲ dvay- 
γελεῖς τοῖς πρεόβυτέροις τῆς 
éuxnAnoitas, or in the Latin, seni- 
oribus, qui preesunt ecclesize.—Lib. 
i. 2, 4. Episcopi, id est presides 
ecclesiarum—and then, qui presi- 
des sunt ministeriorum qui et in- 
opes et viduas protexerunt. Lib. 
iii. 9, 27: a description of Presby- 
ters and Deacons. 

The words Apostoli, et Episcopi, 
et doctores et ministri, in Lib. i. 


3, 5, are taken by Romanists to 
allude to bishops as distinguished 
from presbyters ; but doctores is not 
an appropriate word for presbyters, 
and if there were then bishops 
superior to and presiding over 
presbyters, he would not have 
blamed them for seeking a pre-emi- 
nence ; as, Nunc itaque vobis dico 
qui preestis ecclesiz, et amatis pri- 
mos consessus.—Lib. i. 3,9. And 
again, Verum omnes hujusmodi in- 
sipientes sunt et fatui, qui habent 
inter se emulationem de princi- 
patu, &c.—Lib. iii. 8, 7. 


OF THE CHURCH. 79 


putes and divisions which consequently arose similar to 
those which disturbed the Corinthian Church in the life- 
time of St. Paul, and which, checked for a while by him, 
broke out again after his removal; the need which must 
have been felt more and more of a centre of union and 
of religious teaching and action, to bind together in 
one harmonious body the different members of each 
Christian community, and to facilitate their communi- 
cation with other Churches—led naturally, after the 
departure of the Apostles, to the wise and wholesome 
practice of appointing one presbyter to have a supe- 
riority over the rest in every Church ; and then the name 
of bishop, which before was common to them all, was 
restricted to the superior authority.’ 

This origin of episcopacy is expressly acknowledged 
by patristic testimony even in the fourth century, when 
there was so strong a tendency to magnify the bishop’s 


With this associated authority, it 
would doubtless happen that one of 
the number by mutual arrangement 
would, either in rotation or other- 
wise, act as the President or Chair- 
man of their meetings, or—to use 
an ecclesiastical term—their ‘‘Con- 
sistories.”” ΤῸ make such a presi- 
dency a permanent office, and to 


1As in the case of the Jewish 
Synagogues, so in the earliest 
Christian Churches, there was 
usually, if not always, a body or 
**College”’ of presbyters at the 
head of each society. At any rate, 
in the New Testament, presbyters, 
in the plural, are expressly men- 
tioned in connection with the 


Churches at Jerusalem, at Ephesus, 
and even at Philippi, where proba- 
bly the Church was not large. 
While, on the other hand, there is 
no recorded instance of a single 
presbyter superintending any con- 
gregation. 


invest it exclusively with certain 
portions of the ministerial autho- 
rity once common to all the pres- 
byters, is all that was needed to ori- 
ginate the primitive episcopate, and 
thereby to secure a united action, 
without any violent innovation. 


80 LAE AARS TO ORGANIZATION 


office. It is acknowledged that Churches were at first 
governed by the common advice of presbyters; that 
schisms and contentions among them made it necessary 
to place one over the others; and that the custom of the 
Church, rather than any ordinance of the Lord, made 
bishops greater than the rest.’ 

The causes above mentioned might, under any cir- 
cumstances, have had sufficient force to produce such 
a change; but the gravity of the crisis, which marked 
the last years of the first century, immensely in- 
creased the urgency of their operation. At that time 
the growing dissensions between the Jewish and Gentile 
Christians—the destruction of Jerusalem with the entire 
breaking up of the Church in that city which had been 
the source and centre, the strength and example, of the 
whole Christian body—the appearance of the Gnostic 
heresy with its delusive, pernicious, and widely spread- 
ing doctrines—the impending and already commenced 
collision of Christianity with the power of the Roman 
empire, which was to test the faith, and patience, and 


1 Let Jerome’s unmistakeable 
words be a sufficient evidence of 
this— 

‘“‘Idem est ergo Presbyter qui 
Episcopus ; et antequam diaboli 
instinctu studia in religione fierent, 
et diceretur in populis, Ego sum 
Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem 
Cephz, communi presbyterorum 
concilio ecclesis gubernabantur. 
Postquam vero unusquisque eos, 
quos baptizaverat, suos putabat 


esse, non Christi, in toto orbe de- 
cretum est, ut unus de presbyteris 
electus superponeretur ceteris, ad 
quem omnis ecclesiz cura pertine- 
Sicut ergo presbyteri 
sciunt se ex ecclesiz consuetudine 
el qui sibi prepositus fuerit, esse 
subjectos,—ita Episcopi noverint 
se magis consuetudine, quam dis- 
positionis dominicex, veritate, pres- 
byteris esse majores.”’— ‘Comm. in 
Titus.’ i. 


OF THE CHURCH. 81 


courage of the Churches with a fiery trial—all created a 
pressing need of some organization to meet the accu- 
mulating dangers of the time, and to cement together 
the diverse elements of Christian society thus threatened 
with dissolution. 

The establishment of episcopacy saved the Church ; 
whatever mischiefs were afterwards wrought by the 
abuse and perversion of the system. 

The episcopal office in its original institution was one 
of simple priority among the other ministers, rather than 
a superior order in the Church. Every town had its 
bishop with a body of presbyters and deacons under 
him ; the Church often consisting of a single congrega- 
tion assembling in one place of worship, and the bishop 
himself performing all the duties of a presbyter among 
them, and having a personal acquaintance with every 


member of his flock.’ So 

1Lord King, in his ‘‘ Enquiry 
into the Constitution of the Primi- 
tive Church,’ declares that during 
the first three centuries each 
bishop’s diocese,—or rather his 
‘‘parish,”’ for it was then called 
mapotia,—contained only one 
Church, i. e., one congregation 
meeting in a single place of wor- 
ship. This, however, is too sweep- 
inganassertion. Many large towns 
must even from the earliest times 
have had several places, where 
different congregations of Christ- 
ians met, as Jerusalem and Ephesus 
are in the Acts of the Apostles ex- 
pressly said to have had. Yet, on 


— 


that the condition of each 


the other hand, many zapozixiat 
had doubtless only one Church ; 
and consequently the number of 
such primitive bishoprics in the 
course of time became very great. 
Thus, in Augustin’s days, there 
were nearly 500 bishoprics in the 
African Church, and 400 in Asia 
Minor. And Ignatius, in his 
Epistle to Polycarp, bids him not 
only to let nothing be done in his 
Church without his concurrence, 
μηδὲν ἄνευ γνωμης Gov 
γιηέσθω ; Ὀπὺ ἴο be able to enquire 
after every member of his flock by 
name, ἐξ ὀνόματος πάντας 


ζήτει; which could not possibly 
6 


82 THE FIRST ORGANIZATION 


diocese, and the relations of its ministers to each other, 
were very much like what is now seen in one of our 
parishes in the charge of an incumbent with several 
curates working under him and with him in it. But 
as the numbers of Christians increased, and were spread | 
abroad more widely, separate congregations were neces- 
sarily formed and multiplied, and bishops appointed 
presbyters to take charge of them; until by degrees 
the episcopal office was fully occupied with the ordina- 
tion and general superintendence of the clergy and other 
special duties, without any longer taking an active part 
in the parochial ministrations. And thus the episco- 
pate became quite distinct from the office of the pres- 
byters, and was naturally regarded, as indeed it then 
was, a separate order in the ministry. 

It is not necessary for our present subject to trace in 
any detail the progress of events and changes, in the 
course of which the episcopate gradually rose from its 
originally simple position of priority, to the culmination 
of its authority as a dominant power in the Church. 
A very interesting account of the successive advances, 
which were thus made in the second and third centuries, 
is given by Professor Lightfoot in his treatise on the 
Christian ministry appended to his edition of the Epistle 
to the Philippians. He there points out that the de- 
velopment of the episcopal authority was marked by 


have been doneif the seeof Smyrna from each other, and superintended 
had been an extensive district with by their own distinct pastors 
a number of congregations separate respectively. 


OF THE CHURCH. 83 


three distinct stages of progress, which were connected 
respectively with the names of Ignatius, Ireneus, and 
Cyprian. In the time of Ignatius, the bishop, then only 
primus inter pares among his co-presbyters, was regarded 
as a centre of unity ; in the time of Irenzus, he was 
looked upon as the depositary of primitive truth ; and 
with Cyprian, the bishop was the absolute vicegerent of 
Christ in things spiritual in the Church. 

This great change was fully confirmed and established 
in the following century, in spite of some struggles on 
the part of the presbyters to maintain their original 
position. But this exaltation of the bishop’s power was 
not the only thing which marked the contrast between 
the hierarchy of the Nicene period, and the ministry 
of the apostolic age. That contrast was completed by 
the contemporaneous introduction and expansion of the 
sacerdotal element, which will be noticed in the follow- 


ing Lecture. 


LECTURE EEF. 


A FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE 
CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, 


WITH A SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER 
IT IS RIGHTLY REGARDED AS A PRIESTHOOD. 


ἘΠῚ 


A FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE 
CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, 


WITH A SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS 
RIGHTLY REGARDED AS A PRIESTHOOD. 


HE Christian Ministry in its two Orders instituted 
by the Apostles, and in its subsequent episcopal 
development, has been so far considered, as it appears 
in the New Testament, and in the period immediately 
ensuing; but there still remain some particulars con- 
nected with it, some questions respecting its nature and 
functions, too important to be omitted. 

The simple account of the public services of Christian 
ministers, which is given by Justin Martyr,’ towards the 
middle of the second century, shows that very little 
deviation from the apostolic practice had then taken 
place ; and from the testimony of other Christian authors, 
together with the taunts of Pagan adversaries, it appears 


1 See Justin Martyr ‘ Apol.’ i. ὃ 85, 86. 


88 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


probable that during the course of this century the 
essential character of the original office continued to 
be preserved. By the commencement of the third cen- 
tury, however, this apostolic simplicity had begun to be 
greatly marred by the assumption of a more ostenta- 
tious style of ministration, and a more imposing autho- 
rity. The Christian ministry was now changed into a 
Priesthood after the model of the Levitical Law." 
Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, became high-priests, 
priests, and Levites, and were gradually more and more 
regarded as a: mediating, sacrificing, and absolving 
order, standing between God and the general body of 
Christian men. 
against the Christian Church that it had no temples, 


Before this the reproach cast by Pagans 


altars, priests, or sacrifices, had been its praise and 
glory ; for its temple was the whole world, or wherever 
two or three were gathered together in the Saviour’s 
name ; its altar was the Cross; its priest the Lord Jesus 
Christ, at once the Priest and the all-sufficient sacrifice. 
And the only earthly priesthood was confined to no 
sacerdotal cast, or tribe, or separated order; but was 
co-extensive with the whole community of the faithful, 
who in a figurative or spiritual meaning were kings and 


1 Jerome expressly says that the copi, et Presbyteri, et Diaconi 


scheme of a priesthood in the 
Christian Church was taken from 
the Old Testament. “Et ut 
sciamus traditiones apostolicas 
sumptas de veteri testamento, quod 
Aaron, et filii ejus, atque Levitz 
in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Epis- 


vindicent in Ecclesia.’’ —‘ Epist. 
ad Evagrium,’ the end. 

Accordingly a bishop was then 
often called ’Apyzepevs or Summus 
Sacerdos, a presbyter “‘Iepevs or 
Sacerdos, and a deacon 4evirys or 
Levita. 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 


89 


priests unto God in Christ. But now the leaven of 
Jewish and of Pagan influences,’ which from the first 


1 Professor Lightfoot—(‘ Epistle 


to the Philippians,’ p. 258)—as- 
cribes the origin of the Christian 
sacerdotalism to Pagan influences 
exclusively, though he admits that 
its form was taken from the Jewish 
priesthood of the Old Testament. 
Pagan influences, in the midst of 
which the Christian Churches were 
located, contributed doubtless in 
some measure to this effect ; but I 
think that Judaism also furnished 
a large contribution in the same 
direction. ‘The Professor’s argu- 
ments do not appear to me conclu- 
sive. The absence of sacerdotalism 
up to this time may be due to the 
strength of the Church’s hold upon 
apostolic truth rather than to the 
weakness of Jewish influences ; and 
the following considerations appear 
to me to have great weight. 

1. After the destruction of Jeru- 
salem; and the utter overthrow of 
the Jewish nation, Judaism was no 
longer formidable to the Church as 
an enemy attacking it from without, 
but this did not hinder itfrom be- 
ing even more dangerous as an 
evil influence within the Christian 
body. It was the Judxo-Christi- 
anity of Church-members which 
wrought the greatest mischief. 

2. The victory which the Church 
had gained over Judaism as an 
open antagonist, made it only the 
more formidable as an insidious in- 
fluence. Byastrange law the con- 


quered almost always in the end 
exercise an influence over their 
conquerors ; and vanquished Juda- 
ism, being no longer watched and 
guarded against, was enabled to 
work its way with more security, 
and with a more deadly effect. 

3. The prevalence of Judzo- 
Christianity in the Church was 
proved by the breaking out of the 
heresies of the Nazarenes and the 
Kbionites in the second century, 
these sects being formed out of the 
two parties into which the Judaiz- 
ing Christians split themselves 
when they became openly separa- 
ted from the Church. 

4. The existence of Judaizing 
tendencies in the Church is also in- 
dicated by the reaction against them 
which gave occasion to such here- 
sies as those of Marcion, who by 
his eager and enthusiastic spirit was 
hurried into opposite extremes in 
combating the Judzxo-Christianity 
of those times. And again, the 
Church, while encountering these 
heresies, was led too strongly 
in the direction of the Jewish 
Law. 

5. The Canon of the New Testa- 
ment was not yet fully formed, at 
least in many Churches ; the Old 
Testament was still the sacred 
Book ; and there were in the second 
century no divinely inspired men 
to teach the Christian body how to 


go Avr PORAITER CONSIDERA LION = 


had been working insidiously in the Church, although 
the religious ‘systems from which they sprang were 
formally renounced and resisted, began to make itself 
felt and seen ; and as the inner life of the Church de- 
clined in spirituality, and lost its firm hold of apostolic 
truth, its outward form and show became more pro- 
minent and presuming, and challenged more attention 
from the world. 

Tertullian’ is the first Christian author by whom the 
Church ministry is directly asserted to be a priesthood. 
By Cyprian an undisguised sacerdotalism is maintained ; 
and in the fourth century the sacerdotal system took 
deep root in the Church, and grew and flourished, until 
it culminated at last in the overbearing pretensions of 
the priesthood in the later Church of Rome. 

In our own Church the attempt was made-at the 
Reformation to bring back the presbyter’s office as nearly 
as might be to the apostolic model, without making 


distinguish in it the abiding truth 
from the obsolete form. 

See some admirable remarks on 
all these points in Pressensé’s 
‘Hist. des Trois Prem. Siécles,’ 
vol. ii. 

1 This change had been gradually 
approaching, but distinctly appears 
first at the beginning of the third 
century. Thus Tertullian, ‘‘ Dandi 
baptismum quidem jus habet sum- 
mus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus.” 
‘De Bapt.’ 17. 

‘*Vani erimus si putaverimus, 
quod sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis 


licere.’’—‘ Exhort. Cast.’ 7. 

The system, once introduced, 
soon developed itself in strength 
and pretensions. Cyprian in his 
time contributed greatly to estab- 
lish the sacerdotal position and 
power in the Church. ‘Vel eli- 
gendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indig- 
nos recusandi..... ut sacerdos, 
plebe presente, sub omnium oculis 
deligatur.’’—Cyp. ‘Ep.’ 68. 

** Utique ille sacerdos vice Christi 
vere fungitur.”’ Ep. 63, ad Coecilium. 

See further, Appendix A. 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. ΟΙ 


more violent and sudden changes than were absolutely 
necessary. The noble-minded Reformers in the reign 
of Edward Vi. in this, as in other portions of their work, 
faithfully followed the light of the New Testament, as 
far as that light gradually shone in upon their minds 
with increasing clearness ; but they did not continue 
long enough to complete their labours. And _ their 
efforts never having been subsequently followed up in a 
similar spirit, some blemishes, which they failed to 
notice, or could not then remove,—some expressions 
which savour more of the Romish errors which they 
desired to eliminate, than of the apostolic truth which 
it was their object to restore,—have not yet disappeared 
from our formularies.’ 

In order, therefore, to a right appreciation of the true 
nature of the ministerial offices in the Christian Church, 
and of the ministrations essentially belonging to them, 
it is necessary to enquire more particularly what the 
Apostles really intended their Church officers to be, and 


1 The Reformers of Edward VI.’s 
time evidently proposed to them- 
selves the noble object of bringing 
their Church into as close a confor- 
mity as possible with Scripture 
truth ; and they endeavoured quiet- 
ly but honestly to make our Church 
formularies accord with that truth, 
so far as they were enabled them- 
selves to perceive it. But all the 
subsequent revisions of our Liturgy 
and ecclesiastical system, were un- 
dertaken in a very different spirit, 
and for very different purposes. 


At the beginning of Elizabeth’s 
reign the spirit of compromise pre- 
vailed. -In the time of James I., 
the leading object was to assimilate 
us to Rome without submitting to 
the Roman Pope. And at the 
‘‘Restoration”’ the violent reac- 
tionary feeling against the Puri- 
tans carried the day, and influenced 
the whole proceedings. 

Since then—what has been done 
during more than two hundred 
years ? 


92 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


to do; and what they purposely and altogether excluded 
from the sphere of their authority and duties; and so 
to arrive at a just and sober judgment respecting the 
claims and assertions of post-apostolic times. 

And herein, with a view to bringing the question in 
as distinct and clear a manner as possible before those 
who may be inclined to give it a careful consideration, 
Τ will at once state that the proposition which I under- 
take to prove from the New Testament, and from the 
teaching and practice of the Apostles there recorded, is 
that, according to Scripture truth, the Christian ministry 
is not a priesthood, and Christian ministers are not priests, 
are not invested with any sacerdotal powers, and have 
no sacerdotal functions to perform. 

The English word “priest” is indeed only the word 
“presbyter” abbreviated in its passage into our modern 
lancuage ; and were it not for the equivocal meaning 
of the term, and the consequent confusion of thought, 
and the excuse for erroneous teaching, which it favours, 
there could be no objection to our thus using it to desig- 
nate the truly apostolic office of the presbyter, or elder, 
of the New Testament.t But I here use the words 


1The word ‘‘presbyters”’ be- 
came ‘‘prester ;”’ then in Norman 
French ‘‘prestre ;’ and from this 
the modern French ‘‘prétre,”’ 
and the English ‘‘prest,’’ after- 
wards ‘‘ priest.” 

The circumstance that this word 
is used to denote the Jewish and 
Pagan sacrificers, as well as Chris- 


tian ministers, indicates that the 
nations which thus use it were 
Christianized after sacerdotalism 
had gained a settled place in the 
Church. 

The word ‘‘priest’’ from its equi- 
vocal meaning, is still employed 
amongst ourselyes to prove by an 
argument,—weak indeed and illo- 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 


93 


priest and priesthood only in the other and more com- 
mon meaning, as the equivalents of the Greek ἑερευς 


gical, yet not without its influence 
on weak and illogical minds,—that 
the Church of England retains all 
the sacerdotalism of the older 
Church. Thus, the Church of 
᾿ς England declares certain of her 
ministers to be ‘‘ priests ;”’ a priest 
must offer sacrifices (Heb. Vili. 
3, x. 11), and must have an altar 
whereon to offer them ; the altar in 
our churches must be the Commu- 
nion Table, and the Lord’s Supper 
the sacrifice ; and then any amount 
of sacerdotal and sacramental su- 
perstitions can be introduced ad 
libitum, in direct opposition to our 
Prayer-Book’s teaching. It is most 
desirable, therefore, that this equi- 
vocal word should be avoided, and 
the honest, original ‘“‘ presbyter” 
be restored to its place. 

It is much to be lamented that 
good and learned men, while ac- 
knowledging that a Christian minis- 
ter is not a sacrificing priest,—a 
Zépevs or sacerdos—but an Elder, a 
πρεδβύτερος or presbyter—should 
yet have countenanced the con- 
tinued use of the word ‘priest ;’ 
thus giving a handle to those who 
well know how to use it for evil. 

Thus Hooker, long ago, ad- 
mitted that, ‘‘in truth, the word 
Presbyter doth seem more fit, and 
in propriety of speech more agree- 
able, than Priest, with the drift of 
the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ.” 
And ‘‘ What better title could there 
be given them than the reverend 


name of Presbyters, or fatherly 
guides? The Holy Ghost through- 
out the body of the New Testament, 
making so much mention of them, 
doth not anywhere call them 
Priests.”—‘ Eccles. Polit.’ v. 78. 
Yet he says, that after all it makes 
no difference ; and he will make 
no concession of the name. 

And very recently indeed Pro- 
fessor Lightfoot, in his valuable 
Excursus on the Christian ministry, 
appended to his edition of the 
‘Epistle to the Philippians,’ de- 
clares ‘‘as broadly as possible,” 
that ‘‘the Kingdom of Christ has 
no sacerdotal system ;” that in the 
Christian Church ‘‘ for communica- 
ting instruction, and for preserving 
public order, for conducting reli- 
gious worship, and dispensing of 
social charities, it became necessary 
to appoint special officers. But the 
priestly functions and privileges of 
the Christian people are never re- 
garded as transferred or even dele- 
gated to these officers. They are 
called stewards, or messengers of 
God, servants or ministers of the 
Church, and the like ; but the sacer- 
dotal title is never once conferred 
upon them.” He declares that the 
idea of a priesthood was brought 
into the Church at the end of the 
second century, by the influence of 
Paganism, and tvok its form from 
the Levitical law ; that Christian 
ministers are not priests in the sense 
of offering sacrifices for sin, or 


94. A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


and iepareia, and as they are used throughout our 
English Bible. A priest in this acceptation of the word 
is one whose office it is to act as a mediator, or medium 
of acceptable communication, between God and man in 
sacred things, to offer acceptable sacrifices to God for 
the people, and to impart to them by the power of his 
official acts the grace or blessing which God is ready to 
bestow, especially the absolution or forgiveness of their 
sins, when they have confessed, and repented of them. 
And in this sense it is that I undertake to prove that 
the Christian ministry is not a priesthood. 

1. The first evidence, which I adduce in proof of this 
proposition, is supplied by a consideration of the source 
from whence the form and shape (so to speak) of the 
Christian ministry was derived; the model which the 
Apostles saw fit to imitate in the offices which they 
instituted in the Church. 

As the Christian religion rose up out of the very 
depth and essence of Judaism, following it as its fore- 


making an atonement. Yet heas- clearly apprehended ; and it might 


serts that they may be so called, 
‘‘if the word be taken in a wider 
and looser acceptation.’”’ And this 
is quite enough for those, who de- 
sire it, to cite him as an authority 
for asserting that the Christian 
presbyter is a ‘‘ priest,”’ and, there- 
fore, that all priestly acts and func- 
tions may be predicated of him. 

It is in vain that Professor Light- 
foot adds, ‘‘ Only in this case the 
meaning of the term should be 


have been better, if the later Chris- 
tian vocabulary had conformed to 
the silence of the apostolic writers ; 
so that the possibility of confusion 
would have been avoided.” This 
undecided protest is of no avail. 
As far as the Professor is concerned 
the mischief is to go on, and his 
name is, and will be, used to sup- 
port the very sacerdotalism against 
which he so forcibly declaims. 


Y 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 95 


ordained end and consummation, it might reasonably 
be expected, that such forms and regulations of the 
Jewish Church, as were not inconsistent with the prin- 
ciples of the Gospel Dispensation, would be retained and 
adapted to its use. And the Apostles being men deeply 
imbued with Jewish feelings, and (it may even be said) 
with Jewish prejudices, must have been inclined to 
deviate no further from the customary observances of 
their law, than their Divine Instructor taught them to 
be absolutely required. And they must have felt that 
it was wise to give their new religious life and worship 
as little innovation and strangeness to Jewish minds as 
possible, by continuing whatever could consistently be 
continued of their accustomed ceremonial. 

- But when we proceed to trace how far these antici- 
pations were realized in the apostolic ordering of the 
Christian societies, we meet with a peculiarity in the Jews’ 
religion, which must be clearly apprehended before the 
retention or rejection of Jewish ordinances can be rightly 
understood ; but which, when clearly apprehended, throws 
great light not only on the origin of the Christian minis- 
try, but also on all the powers and functions which were 
assigned to it at the first, or which it could ever after- 
wards legitimately claim. 

The religious life of the Jews in its outward practice 
and operation at the commencement of the Christian 
era, and for at least several centuries before it, exhibited 
a remarkable Dualism,—a two-fold system,—each part 
of which was quite independent of the other, though 


96 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


their operation and effects were harmoniously combined. 
These two parts were respectively centred in 


The Temple and The Synagogue. 


The religious system of the Temple was altogether of 
divine appointment, and all its services divinely ordered, 
even in their minute details, without an authority being 
vested anywhere on earth for altering any of the regula- 
tions originally prescribed. 

The religious system of the Synagogue was of man’s 
appointment, its services being ordered by no divine law, 
but originating in the wisdom of man, and by man’s 
authority and discretion regulated and maintained. 

In the Temple was the priest consecrated according 
to a precise regulation, and a sacerdotal succession laid 
down by God Himself, with the altar and its sacrifices at 
which he officiated, the incense which he burned, the 
holy places into which none might enter, but those to 
whom it was especially assigned. 

In the Synagogue was the reader of the Scriptures, ἢ 
the preacher or expounder of religious and moral truth, 
the leader of the common devotions of the people, un- 
consecrated by any special rites, and unrestricted by any 
rule of succession ; with a reading-desk or pulpit at 
which he stood, but with no altar, sacrifices, or incense, 
and no part of-the building more holy than the rest. 

And without attempting now to dwell upon all the 
remarkable contrasts thus displayed, it may suffice to 
say that the Temple exhibited in a grand combination 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 97 


of typical places, persons, and actions, God dwelling 
with man, reconciling the world unto Himself in the 
person and work of Christ; and pardoning, justifying, 
and graciously receiving those who come to Him through 
the appointed Saviour: while the Synagogue exhibited 
a congregation of men, already reconciled to God, assem- 
bled as devout worshippers for prayer and praise, for 
instruction in divine knowledge, and edification in righ- 
teous living. And the two systems,—the one divine, the 
other human,—the one gorgeous and typical, the other 
simple and real,—in the one, God drawing near to man, 
in the other, man drawing near to God,—never clashed 
or interfered with each other: were never intermingled 
or confounded together. ‘In the Temple there was no 
pulpit, in the Synagogue there was no altar.” 

Now it was the Temple system*with its imposing 
esthetic services, its associations of awe and mystery, 
and not the simple unexciting worship of the Synagogue, 
that naturally appealed to the imagination and feelings 
of men. And accordingly, from the beginning of the 
third century, portions of this system began, and con- 
tinued increasingly, to be introduced into the Church ; 
and in particular the idea of the Temple service was 
imported into the worship of Christian congregations ; 
the Christian ministry, as already mentioned, was repre- 
sented to be a Hierarchy; the form and arrangements 
of the buildings for public devotions were assimilated as 
much as possible to those of the Hebrew sanctuary ; 


and a system of sacerdotalism grew up, and became so 
7 


98 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


inveterate in the Church, that it still lingers and revives 
even amongst ourselves, purified indeed from its grosser 
superstitions, but not altogether removed by the happy 
influence of the Reformation. 

Not so, however, was it in the Apostles’ days, or with 
any of their ordinances and institutions. They retained 
and adapted to Christian use some Jewish forms and 
regulations ; but they were taken altogether, not from 
the Temple, but from the Synagogue. The offices which 
they appointed in the Church, and the duties and autho- 
rity which they attached to them, together with the 
regulations which they made for Christian worship, bore 
no resemblance in name or in nature to the services of 
the priesthood in the Temple. The Apostles had been 
divinely taught that those priests and services were 
typical forms and shadows, which were all centred, 
and fulfilled, and done away, in Christ: and to rein- 
state them in the Christian Church would have been 
in their judgment to go back to the bondage of “ weak 
and beggarly elements” from the liberty, strength, 
and rich completeness, of the Gospel Dispensation, 
They saw that as the ordinances of the Temple 
represented the work of God wrought out for man, not 
man’s work for God, to continue them, after that work 
was finished in the life and death of Jesus, would be in 
effect so far to deny the efficacy of the Saviour’s mission, 
and to thrust in the miserable performances of men to 
fill up an imagined imperfection in the Son of God. 

The Apostles therefore took nothing from the Temple 


OFTHE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 99 


system for the machinery of their Church government; 
but the offices which they appointed, and the duties and 
authority which they attached to them, together with 
the regulations which they made for Christian worship, 
corresponded in a remarkable and unmistakeable manner 
with the whole system of the Jewish synagogue. 

It would be too long to enumerate here all the particu- 
lars of this similarity. They may be found at length, 
with the whole subject exhaustively discussed in a spirit 
of great fairness in Vitringa’s treatise ‘On the Syna- 
gogue.’* 
observe that a Jewish synagogue was governed by a 
body of elders, some of whom acted especially as rulers 
or judges, others were the public religious ministers, and 


It will be sufficient for our present purpose to 


led the prayers of the people, and took care of the 


1 The agreement of the Christian 
Church with the Synagogue, and 
its disagreement with the Temple 
system, are specially seen in the 
following particulars : 

1. The names of the office-bearers 
in the Church, before the third cen- 
tury, were those of the Synagogue, 
not of the Temple. 

2. The places of worship—only 
one Temple, but Synagogues any- 
where ; so Churches. 

3. No different degrees of sanctity 
in the Synagogues—or in the 
Churches. 

4, The services in the Synagogue, 
but not in the Temple, correspon- 
ded with those of Christians. 

5. Vestments were necessary for 


priests in the Temple ; but no par- 
ticular dress was used in the Syna- 
gogue, nor in Christian Churches. 

6. No restriction of persons to a 
particular tribe or class in the Sy- 
nagogue ; but any fit person might 
be appointed to minister there ; so 
also in Christian Churches. 

7. No fixed rule about the age of 
those who officiated in the Syna- 
gogue; nor in the Christian 
Churches. 

8. No exclusion on the ground of 
bodily defects in the Synagogue ; or 
in the Christian Church. 

9. The Synagogue had a raised 
desk or pulpit for the reader, but 
no altar ; so Churches had only an 
Ambo or pulpitum of the same kind. 


TOO 


A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


reading of the law; and such an officer was called the 
angel of the Church, and the chazan or bishop of the con- 


erecation. 


There were also deacons or almoners, on 


whom the care of the poor devolved. And these offices 
with their ministrations tlle Apostles transferred to the 


Christian Churches.’ 


Nor is it an unreasonable supposi- 


tion that “ whenever a Jewish synagogue existed which 


1 Tn a Synagogue, three have 
the magistracy, and were called the 
Bench of Three ; whose office it was 
to decide the differences arising 
between members, and to take care 
of other matters of the Synagogue. 
These judged concerning money 
matters, thefts, losses, &c. These 
were properly and with good reason 
called ἀρχισυναγ wy ot, rulers of 
the Synagogue, because on them 
lay the chief care of things, and 
the chief power. 

‘‘ Besides these, there was the 
Public Minister of the Synagogue, 
who prayed publicly, and took care 
about the reading of the Law, and 
sometimes preached, if there were 
not some other to discharge this 
office. This person was called the 
Angel of the Church, and Chazan or 
Bishop of the Congregation....... 
The Public Minister of the Syna- 
gogue himself read not the Law 
publicly ; but every Sabbath he 
called out seven of the Synagogue 
(on other days fewer), whom he 
judged fit to read. He stood by 
him that read, with great care ob- 
serving thathe read nothing either 
falsely, or improperly, and calling 
him back and correcting him, if he 


had failed in anything. And hence 
he was called Chazan, that is ἐπίδ- 
xomos, or Overseer. Certainly, the 
signification of the word Bishop, or 
Angel of the Church, had been de- 
termined with less noise, if re- 
course had been had to the proper 
fountains, and men had not vainly 
disputed about the signification of 
words, taken I know not from 
whence. 

“ς The service and worship of the 
Temple being abolished as being 
ceremonial, God transplanted the 
worship and public adoration of 
God used in the Synagogues, which 
was moral, into the Christian 
Church ; to wit, the public minis- 
try, the public prayers, reading 
God’s word, and preaching, &c. 
Hence the names of the ministers 
of the Gospel were the very same, 
the Angel of the Church, and the 
Bishop, which belonged to the 
ministers in the Synagogue. 

‘‘ There were also three Deacons, 
or Almoners, on whom was the 
care of the poor; and these were 
called Parnasim, or Pastors.”— 
Lightfoot, ‘Heb. and Talmud. 
Exercit. on Matth,’ iv. 23, 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 101 


was brought, the whole or the chief part of it, to embrace 
the gospel, the Apostles did not there so much /orm a 
Christian Church (or congregation, éxxAncia), as make 
an existing congregation Christian, by imtroducing the 
Christian sacraments and worship, and establishing 
whatever regulations were requisite for the newly adopted 
faith; leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of 
government unchanged, the rulers of synagogues, elders, 
and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or 
both) being already provided in the existing institution.” 
That such was sometimes the case in Jerusalem and 
other Jewish towns is highly probable ; and this possibly 
is the reason why St. James calls the place where Chris- 
tians met for public worship, or the congregation itself, 
their Synagogue,’ as he does in his epistle addressed 
especially to Hebrew disciples. 

The Apostles, therefore, having adopted the official 
arrangements of the synagogue, and discarded those of 
the Temple, in the institution of Church offices, plainly 
showed by this circumstance that no priestly powers 
or duties were attached to their ministrations. 

2. Another argument which lands us in the same con- 


would naturally, if not necessarily, 
adopt the normal government of a 
Synagogue ; and a body of elders 
or presbyters would be chosen to 


1 Archbishop Whately —‘ King- 
dom of Christ Delineated,’ p. 108. 
2Epist. of James, ii. 2. ‘If 
there come into your assembly,”’ 


εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν. 

‘* Christian congregations in Pa- 
lestine long continued to be desig- 
nated by this name of Synagogue. 
With the Synagogue itself they 


direct the religious worship, and 
partly also to watch over the tem- 
poral well-being of the society.’’— 
Professor Lightfoot, ‘Ep. Philip.’ 
p. 190. 


102 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


clusion is deduced from the condition of the lay members 
of the Church as it appears in the New Testament, and the 
equality of privilege or standing-ground in Christ which 
Christians of all orders or degrees possessed. The way 
of access to God being open to all without distinction 
through the priesthood of Christ, there was nothing for 
a priest to do—no sacerdotal work or office for him to 
undertake. But the substance of this argument, being 
specially connected with the position of the Christian 
laity, will be more fully considered in the following 
Lecture. ᾿ 

3. A third distinct proof that the office-bearers in the 
Church of the Apostles were not, and could not be, 
priests, or perform any sacerdotal duties, is seen in a 
condensed form in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is 
found at large in the whole of the Old and New Tes- 
taments, of which that Epistle, as far as its subject 
reaches, is so valuable an epitome. We there learn that 
from the very nature of the priestly office, it is necessary 
for those who hold it to be specially called and appointed 
by God, either personally by name, or according to a 
divinely instituted order of succession; and that, since 
the patriarchal dispensation, only two orders of priest- 
hood have ever had this necessary divine sanction 
granted to them. These two orders are the Order of 
Aaron and the Order of Melchizedec. The priests of 
the former Order belonged to the Jewish dispensation 
only, and have indisputably passed away. The only 
priest after the Order of Melchizedec, ever mentioned 


GOP THE CHRISTIAL MINISTRY. 103 


‘in the Bible, is our Lord Jesus Christ,—the “ Priest upon 
His throne,” without a successor, as He had none before 
Him, in the everlasting priesthood of His mediatorial 
reign. This argument appears to me to be conclusive. 
It appears to me that the Epistle to the Hebrews shuts 
out the possibility of there being any other priest in the 
Christian Church besides Christ Himself. But this does 
not so appear to a large number of our clergy. Bishops, 
as far back as the third century, claimed to be successors 
or vicegerents of Christ on earth ;’ and our presbyters 
now do not hesitate to declare that they are Priests after 
the order of Melchizedec. To my mind and feeling this 


is an impious claim; but countenanced as they are by 


1 In the estimation of Cyprian, in 
the middle of the third century, 
the Bishop was the absolute vicege- 
rent of Christ upon earth in spirit- 
ual things. 

‘Nam si Jesus Christus Dominus 
et Deus noster 1056 est summus sa- 
cerdos Dei patris, et sacrificium 
patri se ipsum primus obtulit, et 
hoc fieri in sui commemorationem 
precipit, utique ille sacerdos vice 
Christi vere fangitur.’’—‘ Cyp. Ep.’ 
63, ad Cecilium. 

Andagain, ‘‘ Neque enim aliunde 
hereses obortz sunt, aut nata sunt 
schismata, quam inde quod sacer- 
doti Dei non obtemperatur; nec 
unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacer- 
dos et ad tempus judex vice Christi 
cogitatur.”—‘Cyp. Ep.’ 65, ad Cor- 
nelium. 

These pretensions were not di- 
minished in the fourth century; for 


which the testimony of Ambrose 
will be sufficient. He declares that 
a Bishop performs the part of Christ 
in the Church, and is the vicege- 
rent of the Lord. 

“ΤῊ ecclesia propter reverentiam 
Episcopalem non habeat caput libe- 
rum, sed velamine tectum; nec 
habeat potestatem loquendi; quia 
Episcopus personam habet Christi. 
Quasi ergo ante judicem, sic ante 
Episcopum, quia vicarius Domini 
est, propter reatus originem sub- 
jecta debet videri.”” — ‘Ambros. 
Com.’ in 1 Cor. xi. 10. : 

The interpolator of the Ignatian 
epistles, whatever was his date, 
“δα used almost the highest pos- 
sible language about Episcopacy ;” 
but from Cyprian’s time and on- 
wards, the addition of sacerdotal- 
ism raised it to a higher level. 


104 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


numberless past and present examples, good men are 
not conscious of impiety in making it. But then it is 
necessary to ask these “priests” for their credentials. 
Where is the record of their divine appointment to the 
sacerdotal office? In what part of the New Testament, 
and in what form of words, is the institution of such 
priests, and the manner of their succession,.to be found ? 
And to such inquiries no satisfactory answer has been 
or can be given. 

But there is still another way in outa the priestly 
claims of the Christian ministry are presented, and which 
is thought to be less arrogant in its pretensions than the 
one just noticed. Christian priests, it is urged, are repre- 
sentatives of the whole Christian body; even as under 
the Jewish law the priestly tribe held their position as 
représentatives of the whole people, who were “a king- 
dom of priests—a holy nation.” And since in a secondary 
and spiritual sense all those who are in Christ are “ kings 
and priests unto God”—“a holy nation, a royal priest- 
hood,’—the clergy as a representative order, and dele- 
gates from the whole Christian community, have a priestly 
office in the Church. 

But if this were so, then the Christian minister, as 
such a representative priest, could at any rate only 
exercise the powers of the body which he represented ; 
he could therefore offer only spiritual sacrifices, without 
any material altar or material sacrifice to put upon it,— 
only such sacrifices as that of praise and thanksgiving, 
which every individual Christian is to give ; and for this 


GP THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 108 


Besides 
this the idea of the spiritual priesthood of each individual 


purpose a separate order of priests is useless.’ 


Christian being delegated to the clerical order is only a 
fond imagination, put forward to support a favourite 
claim. There is no ground for supposing that the 
priestly functions and privileges of the Christian people 
ever were or can be thus transferred or delegated. 
Although the Jewish people were a nation of priests, it 
was only by a divine command expressly and distinctly 
given that one tribe was selected to minister for the 
nation in sacred things, and one family out of this tribe 
was appointed for the priesthood. No such divine selec- 
tion or appointment for a priesthood in the Christian 
Church is anywhere to be found; and the want of this, 
plead what we will, is absolutely destructive to all 
priestly claims. 

4, And this brings us to a fourth and conclusive proof 
of my proposition, to be found among the remarkable 


1 «<The sacrifice of praise,” is a 
Scriptural expression, and our Com- 
miunion Service speaks of ‘‘ this our 
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiv- 
ing.” Such spiritual sacrifices are 
offered up by all and each of the 
faithful from the altar of the heart : 
and there is no place for any other 
priest, besides the worshippers 
themselves, in such a sacrifice. 
This is the old Christian view be- 
fore sacerdotalism infected the 
Church. Justin Martyr (a. p. 155), 
says that prayers and thanksgivings 
are the only acceptable sacrifices, 
and that they are offered by Chris- 


tians (not by a priest or minister), 
in the memorial of the bread and 
wine, in which they remember what 
Christ suffered for them. “Orzuév 
οὖν καὶ εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριότίαι, 
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γενόμεναι, 
τέλειαι μόναι nai εὐαρεόστοί 
εἶόι τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός 
ᾧῴημι, ταῦτα γὰρ μόνα καὶ 
“Χριότιαν οἱ παρέλαβον ποιεῖν, 
nat ἐπ᾿ ἀναμνήδει δὲ τῆς 
τροφῆς αὐτῶν Enpas τε και 
ὑγρᾶς, ἐν ᾧ, καὶ τοῦ πάθους, ὃ 
πέπονθε SU αὐτοὺς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, méuvyvrar.— Justin M. 
Dial. c. Tryph.’ ὃ 117. 


106 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


omissions of Holy Writ. In nothing is the speaking 
silence of the New Testament more complete and signi- 
ficant, than in the fact that never there are Christian 
Neither the 


Apostles themselves, nor any office-bearers whom they 


ministers of any degree called priests. 


appointed, are ever spoken of as having sacerdotal 
powers, or sacerdotal duties, committed to them. In no 
single instance is any one of the words, which describe 
the priesthood and its work, assigned to the office of the 


Christian ministry or to its ministrations.* 


1Such words as zepevs, ἑερα- 
TELA, ἱεράτευμα, ἱερουργέω; 
θύω, θυδία, θυδιαόστήρτιον, or 
any others of sacerdotal meaning, 
are never so much as once in the 
New Testament spoken of the min- 
isterial services in the Christian 
Church. 

They are used when speaking of 
the priesthood of Jesus Christ ; and 
the following obviously figurative 
expressions are found applied to 
Christians in general,—not Chris- 
tian ministers. Thus— 

θυσία, ἃ sacrifice. ‘‘Present your 
bodies a living sacrifice.”’—6vdzav 
Ca@oav. Rom. xii. 1. 

The contribution sent by the 
Philippians to St. Paul is called ‘‘a 
sacrifice (θυσίαν) acceptable, well- 
pleasing to God.” (Phil. iv. 18.) 

“The sacrifice (θυσίαν) of 
praise :’ and ‘‘to do good and to 
distribute forget not, for with such 
sacrifices (θυσίαις) God is well 
pleased.” (Heb. xiii. 15, 16.) 

ἐς To offer up spiritual sacrifices ”’ 
θυσίας πνευματικάς. (1 Pet.ii.5.) 


Familiar as 


‘Iepevs and ἱεράτευμα priest 
and priesthood,—said of all Christ- 
ians. ‘‘Yeareaholy priesthood’— 
ἱεράτευμα :—and ‘a royal priest- 
hood” ieparevua. (x Pet. ii 5, 9.) 

‘‘Hath made us kings and priests 
(iepezs) unto God.” (Rev. i. 6), 
and also in Rev. v. 10, xx. 6. 

St. Paul on one occasion, in a 


very grand figure of speech, repre- 


sents the whole body of Gentile 
Christians asa great sacrifice offered 
up to God, and himself as a priest 
ministering at it; thus ‘‘That I 
should be the minister (Aeirovp- 
yov, not a sacerdotal word) of 
Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, minis- 
tering the Gospel of God.” (‘Iepovp- 
γοῦντα TO Evayyél1tov—acting 
as a priest with respect to the Gos- 
pel) ‘‘that the offering up of 
the Gentiles” (zpoépmopa τῶν 
ἐθνῶν) ‘‘might be acceptable.” 
Rom. xv. 16. 

He also uses ἃ similar metaphor in 
writing to the Philippians, ‘‘And if 
I be offered (Grévdouat, am poured 
out as a libation or drink offering), 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 107 


the Apostles were with the striking ceremonial of the 
Temple worship, and sometimes deriving from it 4 
figurative language of the greatest force, they never 
employ terms of priestly import in any manner which 
countenances the supposition that they, or the presbyters 
of their Churches, were acting as Priests in the congre- 
gations of Christian people. 

This omission is acknowledged by High Churchmen to 
be a “ difficulty ;” but it is far more than a difficulty, it 
is an insuperable bar to all sacerdotal assumptions. For 
when it is considered that before the Apostles’ times 
neither they, nor any one else, had even so much as 
ever heard of a religion without a visible priesthood, and 
its necessary accompaniments ; and that after the Apos- . 
tles were gone the Church turned back to this conspi- 
cuous element of all other religions ; when it is considered 
also that a priesthood requires not merely a non-pro- 
hibition, but ὦ positive and express appointment of divine 
authority, I am justified in affirming that this negative 
argument from the omissions of the New Testament 
proves as strongly as any historic evidence can demon- 
strate, that in the Christianity which the Apostles 
preached and taught, there was no priesthood or priestly 
ministrations, but those of Jesus Christ Himself,—the 


upon the sacrifice (θυσίᾳ) and ser- These are all the instances in 

vice of your faith.” (Phil. ii. 17.) which words occur in connection 
And he uses the word 6wévdouaz with Christians, except in Heb. 

in the same sense in 2. Tim. iv. 6, xii. 10, for which see Note (p), 

“1 am ready to be offered” ἤδη and Lecture vii. 

Omevdopat. 


108 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


one great and sufficient High-priest of the whole Church 
of God." 

Τ am well aware that a single expression in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews—“ We have an altar ’—is sometimes put 
forward as opposed to what has been here advanced. 
The “altar” is then taken to mean the communion 
table, the Eucharistic elements laid upon it are declared 
to be a sacrifice, and the officiating minister necessarily 
becomes a priest. But such an interpretation is incon- 
sistent with the context, and is on all grounds, altogether 


indefensible.’ 


1The office and work of a 
‘* priest’ is one which so absolutely 
requires a divine appointment, that 
nothing short of an express and posi- 
tive deciaration to this effect in the 
New Testament could justify our 
calling the Christian ministry. a 
priesthood. The Jewish priests 
could point to a distinct and un- 
mistakeable ordinance of God in 
their Law, instituting their order 
and assigning to them their powers 
and duties. Those who claim to be 
Christian Priests, must be called 
upon to show an equally distinct 
appointment of their order in the 
New Testament. This they are 
utterly unable to do: and nothing 
can supply the absence of it. No 
pleas of ‘‘ antecedent probability,”’ 
or analogies between the Jewish 
and Christian dispensations, or 
other similar arguments, can be of 
any availin sucha case. Untiladis- 
tinct divine institution of a priest- 
hood for the Christian ministry can 


‘ 


Indeed, these words, “ We have an altar” 


be produced, it must be affirmed 
that the New Testament and the 
Apostolic Church repudiate such 
claims; and their only support 
must be sought for in the later 
time, when ‘‘the mystery of ini- 
quity”’ was doing its work, and 
the predicted apostacy had al- 
ready begun. 

The arguments commonly put 
forward to support the allegation 
that the Christian ministry is a 
priesthood,—when they are not 
simply borrowed from the unscrip- 
tural practices of the third and fol- 
lowing centuries,—are marked by 
the fallacy technically called igno- 
ratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclu- 
sion ; being such as do not tend to 
prove the existence of this priest- 
hood, but assuming its existence, 
proceed to account for it, or to ex- 
plain the nature and mode of its 
operation. 

2 These words, ‘‘We have an 
altar,” are more fully considered in 


ΜΡ MINISTRY. 106 


when rightly understood, confirm instead of invalidating 
the preceding argument. 

And these four proofs, each one by itself complete, 
must be taken together in their accumulative force, in 
considering the question whether the Christian ministry 
is a priesthood or not.’ 

But this is ποῦ all. 
dary evidence by no means void of weight, though not 
bearing so directly on the subject as the preceding 


There is other collateral or secon- 


testimony. Thus it is a significant fact that neither 
presbyters nor deacons were anointed, like the Jewish 
priests, to consecrate them for their ministerial work ; 
but they were admitted to their sacred offices by a 
And a brief con- 
sideration of the nature of this ordination,—of the persons 


solemn but simple form of ordination. 


from whom it was received,—_and what was conferred by 
it,—will still further illustrate the design and character of 
the Christian ministry in the apostolic Church. 

1. There are no rules prescribed, nor any precise 
directions given in the New Testament, as to the form 
or manner in which ministers were to be ordained. But 


Lecture VII. in connection with repulsive to their ideas and prin- 


the Sacrament of the Lord’s Sup- 
per. See Note, p. 306. 

1 Another proof still,—or at any 
rate, an indirect confirmation of 
the foregoing proofs—is seen in the 
fact that the Apostles continued to 
attend the Temple services and the 
ministrations of the Jewish priest- 
hood at the temple altar: since it 
would have been utterly alien and 


ciples as faithful Jews, to have set 
up Sther priests and altars, either 
to rival or to co-operate with those 
of the Temple. After the over- 
throw of the Jewish polity, there 
is no indication anywhere that 
any apostolic authority then esta- 
blished a priesthood which they 
had not previously instituted. 


IIO A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


in Acts xiii. it is recorded that Paul and Barnabas were 
ordained to the office of Apostles by the imposition of 
hands, accompanied with prayer and fasting. And 
doubtless this simple ceremonial, which sufficed for 
assigning the highest place of dignity in the Church, was 
‘used with appropriate variations in the ordination of 
presbyters and deacons. So that when St. Paul warned 
Timothy at Ephesus “ to lay hands suddenly on no man,” 
these words had become a well-known expression for 
ordaining to a sacred office. And this mode continued 
to be used in the post-apostolic Church, as is evidenced 
by the directions and the forms of prayer for ordinations 


in what are called “the Apostolic constitutions.” 
2. The persons who ordained Christian ministers were 
at first naturally and necessarily the Apostles, as the 


founders and chief rulers of the Church. 


1 It may possibly be objected that 
this ceremony was not an Ordina- 
tion to the Apostleship, inasmuch 
as St. Paul declares in his Epistle 
to the Galatians, that he was ‘‘an 
‘Apostle not of man neither by 
man.” This objection does not 
seem to me to have much force; 
because St. Paul was directly chosen 
and appointed by Jesus Christ ; 
whether any ecclesiastical cere- 
mony was afterwards added ‘or not. 
However this may be, the argu- 
ment in the present case is not 
affected ; since, if the transaction 
recorded in this chapter was only 
a solemn Church sanction given to 
the particular mission, which Paul 
and Barnabas then undertook, it 


Thus Paul and 


was at any rate considered sufficient 
to entitle them to exercise aposto- 
lic powers and authority in that 
mission, by ordaining presbyters, 
and regulating Churches, as well 
as preaching Christ. 

It is further to be noticed that 
St. Paul seems not to have preached 
to the gentiles, until he had been 
thus formally sent to do so by the 
direct call of the Spirit, and this 
imposition of hands at Antioch, 

*‘Jusqu’au moment ov il recut la 
délégation de l’Kglise d’Antioche, 
Saul s’était borné ἃ annoncer 
lEvangile aux Juifs et aux prose- - 
lytes.”’—Pressensé, ‘Histoire des 
Trois Premiers Siécles,’ vol. i. 
p. 447. 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 111 


Barnabas having gathered together Christian converts 
at different places in Asia Minor, “ ordained them elders 
in every Church.” And Clement of Rome remarks of 
the Apostles generally, what he had probably himself 
witnessed in some instances, that they appointed some 
of their earliest converts—the first-fruits of their Apostle- — 
- ship—as ministers in their several congregations. But 
when fresh ministers were ordained in an already con- 
stituted Church, the presbyters there present took part 
in an Apostle’s ordination by laying their hands with 
him on those who were ordained ; a custom which was 
preserved in the later Church, and has been retained 
even to the present day, in some slight respect, in our 
own. : 

But it was evidently not by an Apostle’s hands alone 
that sacred orders could be conferred. The authority 
to appoint Church officers was inherent in every duly 
constituted Church, as the natural right of a lawful and 
well organized society. And as presbyters might be 
joined with an Apostle in ordaining, so might they 
without an Apostle, give this sanction of ecclesiastical 
authority in the ordination of any minister in their 
Church. And thus not only Timothy and Titus, who - 
were specially delegated by St. Paul, ordained presbyters 
and deacons in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete ; but 
“ certain prophets and teachers ’ > at Antioch, without any 


1 Κατὰ χώρας οὖν καϊπόλεις καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων 
κηρύσδοντες καθίότανον τὰς πιότεύειν .---' Clem. Rom. ep. ad 
ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες Cor.’ i. 52. 
τῷ Πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπιόκόπους 


112 


A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


such apostolic delegation, were competent to ordain an 


Apostle. 


When Episcopacy was fully established in the Church 
it became the rule that Bishops only should ordain the 


presbyters and deacons; but this was not owing to any 


divine law or apostolic prescription.’ 


1 Jerome expressly affirms that it 
was ecclesiastical custom, and the 
desire to prevent disputes, and not 
any divine law, that caused the dis- 
tinction between Bishops and Pres- 
byters—see Lecture II. note (c) p. 
79. This distinction, according to 
him, consisting principally, if not 
solely, in the authority to ‘Or- 
dain.” 

Long after the general establish- 
ment of Episcopacy, and reaching 
even into the 4th century, traces 
are to be found of presbyterian 
ordinations still retaining their 
place in the Church. 

Professor Lightfoot (Ep. Phil. 
p. 231), quotes a decree of the 
Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314), to 
the effect that neither the country 
bishops nor the city presbyters were 
to give ordination without permis- 
sion from the Bishop of the diocese 

in writing. 
᾿ς χωρεπιόπόποις jun ἐξεῖναι 
πρεόβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους 
χειροτονεῖν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ TPEG- 
βυτεροις πόλεως χωρὶς τοῦ 
ἐπιτραπῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπιό- 
κόπου μετὰ γραμμάτων ἐν 
EXAGTY παροτπίᾳ. 

‘¢ Thus, while restraining the ex- 
isting license, the framers of the 
decree still allow very considerable 


And the Article 


latitude. And it is especially im- 
portant to observe that they lay 
more stress on Episcopal sanction, 
than on Episcopal ordination.” 

See also the Professor’s remarks 
about the origin and position of 
the Chorepiscopal office. 

Another remarkable testimony to 
the existence and long continuance 
of presbyterian ordination is given 
by Eutychius, a Patriarch of Alex- 
andria. He represents that from 
the very foundation of the Church 
at Alexandria by St. Mark, down to 
the time of the Council of Nice (a. 
D. 325), the Bishop of that Church 
was always chosen by and out of the 
twelve presbyters, and was by them 
consecrated as their Bishop by the 
imposition of their hands. ‘The 
eleven. presbyters then chose 
another to fill up their number, and 
made him a co-presbyter with 
themselves. 

‘*Constituit item Marcus Evan- 
gelista duodecim presbyteros cum 
Hanania, qui nempe manerent cum » 
patriarcha [i.e. Episcopo], adeo ut, 
quum vacaret patriarchatus, elige- 
rent unum e duodecim presbyteris, 
cujus capiti reliqui undecim manus . 
imponerent, eumque benedicerent, et 
patriarcham crearent ; et dein virum 
aliquem insignem eligerent, eumque 


Perea e CHRISTIANS MINISTRY. Ὁ 


of our own Church is most scriptural, when, without any 
allusion to bishops, it declares those to be lawfully 
ordained, ‘‘ who are chosen and called by men who have 
public authority given unto them in the congregation to 
eall and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.” A 
priest, indeed, whose office is to stand between God and 
man, must be specially called by God; and as far as he 
is authorized by man at all, he must be authorized pre- 
cisely in the way of God’s own prescription; but a 
pastor and teacher and administrator of sacred things in 
a congregation of Christian men, who have access to 


presbyterum secum constituerent loco 
ejus qui sic factus est patriarcha.”’ 
—Eutychius. ‘Origines Ecclesiz 
Alexandrine,’ translated from the 
Arabic by Selden; who reckons 
the date of Eutychius to have been 
A. D. 876. 

Eutychius adds that the custom 
which he describes continued to the 
time of Alexander, the Bishop of 
Alexandria, who was one of the 
318 bishops at the Council of Nice. 

This distinct testimony of Euty- 
chius is confirmed by Jerome, who 
lived so close to the time when the 
Alexandrian practice was still in 
force. ‘‘Nam et Alexandrie a 
Marco Evangelista usque ad Hera- 
cleam et Dionysium Episcopos, 
presbyteri semper unum ex se elec- 
tum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, 
Episcopum nominabant ; quo modo 
si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut 
. diaconi eligant de se quem indus- 
trium noverint et archidiaconum 
vocent,””—‘ Ep. ad Evagrium.’ 


And so Richard Hooker, though 
an uncompromising opponent of 
Presbyterianism, was too honest 
and too learned a man not to admit 
the validity of Presbyterian orders. 
“ΝΟΥ whereas,”’ he writes, ‘‘ some 
do infer that no ordination can 
stand, but only such as is made by 
Bishops, which have had their or- 
dination likewise by other Bishops 
before them, till we come to the 
very Apostles of Christ themselves ; 
to this we answer that there may be 
sometimes very just and sufficient 
reason to allow ordination made 
without a Bishop. The whole 
Church visible being the true 
original subject of all power, it 
hath not ordinarily allowed any 
other than Bishops alone to ordain ; 
howbeit, as the ordinary course is 
ordinarily in all things to be ob- 
served, so it may be in some cases 
not unnecessary thai we decline 
from the ordinary ways.’”’—’Ec- 
cles. Polit.,’ vii. 14. 


8 


114 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


God through the priesthood of Jesus Christ—whatever 
inward call he may require—needs no other outward 
appointment to his office than the authority of the 
Church in which he ministers. And the visible Church, 
“as the true original subject of all power” in such 
matters, may make such appointments in any mode 
which may be deemed most expedient ; amenable only 


to the general law of decency and order.’ 
The Churches, which like our own have retained the 


1«*They [the Authorities of a 
Christian Church] have an un- 
doubted right .... to appoint 
such orders of Christian ministers, 
and to allot to each such functions 
as they judge most conducive to the 
great ends of the society : they may 
assign to the whole, or to a portion, 
of these, the office of ordaining 
others as their successors ; they 
may appoint one superintendent of 
the rest, or several, under the title 
of Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, 
Moderator, or any other that they 
may prefer ; they may make the ap- 
pointment of them for life, or for 
a limited period, by election, or by 
rotation, with a greater or a less 
extensive jurisdiction: and they 
have a similar discretionary power 
with respect to liturgies, festivals, 
ceremonies, and whatever else is 
left at large in the Scriptures.”’ 
“ΠῚ 6 bodies of Christians we have 
been speaking of [i.e., the Reform- 
ed Churches] had full power [i.e., 
authority] to retain, or to restore, 
or to originate, whatever form of 
Church government they, in their 


deliberate and cautious judgment, 
might deem best for the time, and 
country, and persons, they had to 
deal with ; whether exactly similar 
or not to those introduced by the 
Apostles ; provided nothing were 
done contrary to Gospel precepts 
and principles. They were, there- 
fore, perfectly at liberty to appoint 
Bishops, even if they had none that 
joined in the Reformation ; or to 
discontinue the appointment, even 
if they had: whichever they were 
convinced was the most conducive, 
under existing circumstances, to 
the great object of all Church 
government. And though their 
decision on this point ought to have 
been greatly influenced by their 
belief as to what were the forms 
adopted by the Apostles (which 
must have been not only wise, but 
the very wisest, for those times and 
persons), they had no reason to 
hold themselves absolutely bound to 
adhere always and everywhere to 
those original models.” — Arch- 
bishop Whately, ‘Kingdom of 
Christ Delineated,’ pp. 248, 252, 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 115 


Episcopate and Episcopal ordination, may reasonably 
prefer this form of government; and justly consider that 
it is one of all but apostolic antiquity,—and one, which 
having been found desirable, or even necessary, after 
the departure of the Apostles,—and having been well 
tried by long experience,—should never lightly be 
given up. But on the other hand, the government and 
the ordinations of Presbyterian Churches are just as valid, 
scriptural, and apostolic as our own; and when circum- 
stances made it necessary or expedient, it was quite 
lawful for them to adopt this form of Church polity, and, 
having found it effective, to retain it. 

3. What is conferred upon a Christian minister by his 
ordination has generally been said to be a certain power, 
—a power ecclesiastical or spiritual, or both,—communi- 
cated by divine appointment through the hands of him 
from whom the orders are received. And this power has 
been variously interpreted in a wider or more restricted 
sense, according to the respective tenets of individuals, or 
of Churches. It has been declared to be the same power 
which was given to the Apostles, continued and handed 
down in the Church; it has been called the power of 
forgiving sins, or of conferring the grace of absolution: 
of effectually administering the sacraments, or of making 
the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist ; or gene- 
rally and vaguely the power of acting as a Christian 
priest, whatever that may be held to mean. 

But with all due respect to the antiquity of such 
opinions, and to the Churches and theologians who have 


116 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


held them, I must, with the New Testament in my 
hands, venture to affirm that, according to its divine 
teaching, it cannot be shown that ordination confers any 
power at all; and from what we can gather from its 
pages respecting the nature and work of the ministry to 
which men are ordained, it may be confidently and 
reasonably concluded that ordination confers, not power, 
but ecclesiastical authority, to perform the duties of the 
clerical office. 

The words “ power” and “ authority,’ though very 
distinct in meaning, have often been confounded together, 
and much confusion of thought and language has thereby 
ensued. When the distinction between them is borne in 
mind, and the erroneous notion of the ministry being a 
priesthood is eliminated, there will not be much difficulty in 
seeing that authority and not power is given by ordination. 

1. To assist in substantiating this assertion I appeal 
to the words used in the New Testament to denote 
ordination; and I ask what inference may be deduced 
from them? The word “ordain” occurs very often in ~ 
our English version, and is used for any kind of appoint- 
ment or regulation, being applied indifferently to persons 
and to things. It is given as the translation of no less 
than twelve Greek words of very different force and 
meaning, but all implying some kind of causation, ap- 
pointment, or selection.’ Of these twelve words six are 


1The word ‘‘ Ordination” does tament any word of the original 
not occur in our version of the language corresponding to it. 
Bible ; nor is there in the New Tes- The verb ‘‘to ordain” occurs 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 117 


used of persons appointed to some office ; but only two 
of these, HAGLOT HL and χειροτονέω; are spoken of the 
ordination of Christian presbyters. The former of these 
two words, καθίότημι, 18 one of very wide and general 
meaning, and signifies “to set up,’ “constitute,” or 
“place in a position,” in any way, or. for any purpose 
whatever. The other word, ye:pororéw, with its kindred 
substantive yezpororvia, was the word commonly employed 
in post-apostolic times for ordination, in the strictly 
ecclesiastical sense; but as in two of the three places, 
where it is found in the New Testament, it means simply 
selected, chosen, or appointed; as, in Acts x. 41, to be 
witnesses of Christ’s resurrection ; and in 2 Cor. viii. 19, 
to convey the contributions of the Gentile Churches to 
Jerusalem ; there is no ground for supposing that it has 
any other special or different meaning in Acts xiv. 23, 


very often ; and the following are 
the twelve Greek words of which 
it is the translation :— 
yiyvou“ai—Acts 1. 22, ‘must 
one be ordained to be,”’ &c. 
ypagpw—dude 4, ““ before of old 
ordained to this,’ &c. 
διατασόω--1 Cor. viii. 17, ‘‘so 
ordain I.” Also 1 Cor. ix. 14. 
Gal. iii. 19. 
éroywatco—Eph. ii. 10, ‘hath 
before ordained,”’ &e. 
καθίστη με---Πῦ. i. 5, ‘and or- 
dain Elders.’’ Also Heb. νυ. 1. 
natracuevatca— Heb. ix. 6, 
‘‘these things were thus ordained.” 
uptvea—Acts xvi. 4, ‘‘the de- 
crees that were ordained.” 
᾿ opiiw—Acts xvii. 31, ‘by that 


man whom he hath ordained.” 
Also Acts x. 42, 1 Cor. ii. 7. 

movsco—Mark iii. 14, ‘the or- 
dained twelve.”’ 

raoo@—Acts xiii. 48, 
ordained to eternal life.” 

τίθημε---1 Tim. ii. 7, “1 am or- 
dained a preacher.” John xv. 16. 

χειροτονέω —Acts xiv. 23, 
‘*When they had ordained them 
Elders.” 

In one passage, Rom. vii. 10, the 
English word “ ordained” has no- 
thing to correspond with it in the 
original,—évrodAy ἡ εἰς ζωήν. 

Of these twelve, the six words 
γίγνομαι, παθίότημι, ὁρίζω, 
ποιέω, τίθημι, and χειροτονέω;, 
refer to persons appointed to office. 


‘¢were 


118 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


when applied to the ordination of presbyters. Neithez 
of these words, therefore, implies anything more than 
that presbyters and deacons were in a regular, orderly, 
and becoming manner appointed to their offices; and 
were authorized to act as ministers in their respective 
Churches ; without expressing, or in any way intimating, 
that any special powers were thereby given, or anything 
conveyed to them, except the lawful authority which 
office-bearers in a well regulated community of any kind 
must be expected to possess. 
9. T further observe, that all spiritual power is a gift 
from God. And power of various kinds was thus given 
in the apostolic age; and usually through the Apostles’ 
hands in the spiritual gifts, or χαρίόματα, Which charac- 
terized that period. But these gifts were bestowed upon 
men and women without any connection with sacred 
orders; and there is no intimation that ordination con- 
ferred them. Doubtless some of these spiritual gifts, 
and the powers which they imparted, were possessed in 
those days by ordained men; and it is quite possible 
that such gifts were sometimes given them at the time of 
their ordination ; but it was not by their ordination that 
they received them, but by the same means as at other 
times. The only passage in the New Testament which 
seems to countenance the contrary supposition is the 
well-known verse in 1 Tim. iv. 14,—“ Neglect not the gift 
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy with the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” This gift, no 
doubt, was a spiritual power. But this was given to him 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 119 


by prophecy, 1.6. by express divine direction; and al- 
though it was probably given at the time of his ordina- 
tion, yet it was given not by the laying on of the hands 
of the presbytery, but with, 1.6. together with this imposi- 
tion of hands,—werd τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν yerparv ;—the 
presbyters joining in the ordination, but the gift being 
bestowed by the hands of Paul, as in other cases,—a 
fact which he himself mentions in his second Epistle 
(2 Tim. i. 6), when he says, ‘‘ Wherefore I put thee in 
remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in 
thee by the putting on of my hands” —éra τῆς ἐπιθέσεως 
τῶν χειρῶν μου. Lt isindeed indubitable that such powers 
were given only by the Apostles, and therefore if they did 
accompany their ordinations, they must have ceased to 
do so when the Apostles were no more; and as to any 
power specially imparted by the act of ordination, inde- 
pendently of such gifts, there is not in the New Testa- 
ment the slightest trace of its existence, much less of its 
continuation from age to age. 

We are therefore brought again to the conclusion that 
ordination gave, and still gives, ministerial authority, and. 
not power,—authority to use gifts or powers for the 
benefit of the Church, as its recognized office-bearers, but 
not itself conferring them. Richard Hooker indeed has 
said, that “No man’s gifts or qualities can make him a 
minister in holy things, unless ordination do give him 
power.” But gifts and qualities do give power: what 
they do not give is authority to minister in the congre- 
gation, which authority ordination supplies. 


120 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


And so again, on looking at ordination in the present 
time, either amongst ourselves, or in other Churches, it is 
not seen that it bestows any power upon those who 
receive it. Authority it gives, according to the order 
- and constitution of each Church, but no other power than 
men possessed before, or afterwards by whatsoever means 
obtain. The power of preaching the word, of bringing 
God’s truth home to men’s hearts, of winning souls, 
converting sinners, building up believers, reclaiming the 
backsliding, supporting the weak, and comforting the 
sorrowful,—these and all other such powers are evidently 
not given in or by ordination, however abundantly some 
ordained men may possess them. Those therefore 
amongst ourselves who contend that spiritual power is 
given by the act of ordaining, if they are not merely 
misunderstanding the word, and using it in a sense which 
does not belong to it, are brought to the assumption 
(which, to say the truth, they are usually not backward 
to acknowledge), that this power is not anything like 
what has just been mentioned,—a power producing 
effects which are seen and felt in the hearts and lives of 
men,—but one much more secret and unappreciable in 
its working,—the power, as it is alleged, of conferring 
divine grace through the sacraments,—of giving absolu- 
tion to those who repent,—of rendering men’s prayers 
and services acceptable to God ;—thus making the effect 
of the sacraments to depend upon something in the 
administrator, instead of the ordinance of Christ; and 
consciously or unconsciously adopting the notion of a 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. | 121 


priestly office, which the Apostles, as before shown, did 
not institute in the Church. Indeed the real ground of 
all that has been held and taught respecting such minis- 
terial power? from the third century to the present day ; 
_ the true reason which underlies all the arguments used to. 
justify the claims to such powers, is the original assump- 
tion that Christian ministers are priests to mediate 
between God and men, to make intercession for them, to 
offer sacrifices, to remit sins, and to do all that a priest- 
hood has to do. 

Tt is this conception of the Christian ministry that has 
given birth, among other things, to all the questions of 
ancient or modern times respecting the confession of sins, 
and the absolution of those who confess them. A large 
page in Church history is filled with such questions, and 
their practical results; a long catalogue of Church 
scandals and crimes is supplied by them, and the confes- 
sional, penance, and priestly absolution, have been made 
powerful engines of sacerdotal tyranny and debasing 
superstition. But the apostolic record by its very 
silence testifies aloud that all these are the doctrines and 
doings of men, opposed to the word of God, and the 
practice of the primitive Church. The Apostles com- 
manded no man to confess his sins to them, or to the 
presbyters of his Church; though it might at times be 
desirable for Christians to “confess their faults to one 
another ;’ and converts might naturally sometimes think 
it right publicly to confess and show their former evil 
deeds, in order to declare more distinctly their renun- 


(99 A FURTHER CONSIDERA TION 


ciation of them. It may still at times be good for a 
' perplexed or burdened conscience to seek relief or guid- 
ance by making known its secret troubles to some expe- 
rienced and sympathizing Christian brother ; and such a 
one a Christian minister may well in many cases be :— 
but such confession is in no case commanded or required ; 
nor is there any advantage in making it to a presbyter, 
rather than to any other prudent Christian friend. 

As to the “grace of absolution” presumed to be given 
by Christian ministers to those who confess their sins, 
there is not the least appearance of it in the New Testa- 
ment. The Apostles indeed proclaimed most plainly 
forgiveness of sins to all who would receive their word— 
to all who had “repentance towards God, and faith 
towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” It was the office and 
duty of the presbyters to do the same. It is still the 
duty and the privilege of Church ministers “to declare 
and pronounce unto Christ’s people that God pardoneth 
and absolveth atl them that truly repent and unfeignedly 
believe His holy gospel.” But neither Apostle nor 
presbyter in the primitive Church, as far as we know, 
pronounced absolution upon those who had confessed 
their sins for the purpose of conveying to them a grace 
from God, which otherwise they would not have had; 
nor is there anything in the New Testament to show that 
the declaration of God’s forgiveness has any greater 
efficacy from the mouth of an ordained presbyter, than ᾿ 
from that of any ordinary Christian. The doctrine of 
ministerial absolution had no existence in the Church 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 123 


until after it had so far departed from apostolic truth, 
as to suppose the Christian presbyter to be invested 
with sacerdotal powers ; and not even then, until the 
lapse of several centuries had sunk it deeper still in 
superstitious error.’ 

The clergy, then, not being a priestly caste, or a medi- 
ating, sacrificing, absolving order, but Church officers 
appointed for the maintenance of due religious solemnity, 
the devout exercise of Christian worship, the instruction 
of the people in divine truth, and their general edification 
in righteous living,—are the acting representatives of the 
Church of which they belong, and derive their ministerial 
authority fromit. In the words of Archbishop Whately, 
“the clergy are merely the functionaries of the particular 
Church to which they are members; it is in that ca- 
pacity only that they derive their station and power from 
Christ, by virtue of the sanction given by Him to Christian 
communities; their authority, therefore, comes direct 
from the society so constituted, in whose name and 
behalf they act as its representatives, just to that extent 
to which it has empowered and directed them to act.” ? 

And I venture now, with all respect, to commend the 
arguments, which in the preceding pages I have endea- 
voured to set forth in conformity with the teaching of 
the New Testament, to the serious consideration of our 
clergy at the present time. For “ the clergy,” writes the 
archbishop just quoted, “ are under a peculiar temptation 


1 See Appendix C. on ‘‘Confes- 2See Appendix Ὁ. on ‘The 
sion,” &c. Apostolical Succession.’ 


-- 


124 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


to lean too favourably, and with too little of rigorous 
examination, towards a system which confers the more 
elevation and grandeur on them, in proportion as it 
detracts from the claims of the entire community,” and 
which “derives our Church’s authority rather from them, 
than theirs from i.” Far better, however, is 10 for us to 
exalt Christ alone, and to seek no other place in His 
service than He has appointed for us. And when 
stripped of the false glare of sacerdotal pretensions, and 
restored to its apostolic simplicity, though less imposing 
then in the eyes of men, how truly dignified is the office, 
how solemnly important is the work of the Christian 
minister! How great is the honour laid upon him, 
that he should be a fellow-worker with God Himself in 
the world,—an ambassador of Christ to men,—a dis- 
penser of divine truth to His people! And when grace 
and wisdom, earnestly sought and freely given, have 
enabled him effectually to do the work of his ministry 
by the words which he speaks, by the ordinances which 
he administers, and by the life which he lives,—how 
immeasurable is the joy and blessing which crown his 
successful ministrations ! 


Several other particulars, not without their interest, 
but of less vital importance, in connection with the 
ministry of the Church, can only be just alluded to here, 
when even the gravest questions have been but lightly 
touched. Of this kind are the social condition of the 
clergy,—their connection with secular pursuits,—the 


ΟΕ CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 128 


sources of their maintenance,—and the indelibility of 
their orders. 

1. The Apostles evidently intended the ministers of 
the Churches which they formed, to be of and with their 
people,—to be united with them in all the social ties, 
the relationships and sympathies, of common life. And 
accordingly among the very first of the directions given 
by St. Paul, in his Pastoral Epistles, for their ordination, 
appears the injunction that a presbyter and a deacon 
should each be “the husband of one wife.” Whatever 
points of dispute may be raised upon these words, it is 
clear that a Christian minister was expected to be a 
mazried man. The honourgiven by the apostolic religion 
to married and domestic life, and the responsibility 
assigned to the Christian family, as the wholesome 
fountain from whence sound piety and moral purity 
were to flow forth into the whole Church, were to be 
especially exemplified in the office-bearers of the com- 
munity. The contrary rule of a later age took its origin 
from the perverse one-sided asceticism which the wide 
diffusion of Gnostic principles had introduced. The 
Gnostic doctrines respecting the material world and 
animal life began very early to infect the Church, and 
produced a general sentiment that celibacy was a much 
higher and holier state than married life—that it brought 
men nearer to God, and fitted them for receiving and 
imparting the Holy Spirit. Such false sentiments, en- 
couraged and strengthened by the extravagant manner 
in which Church authorities extolled the celestial virtues 


. 


126 4 FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


of a single life, very naturally attached themselves to the 
prevalent idea of a priestly caste, pre-eminently conse- 
crated to God. The state which was the holiest upon 
earth ought surely to belong to those who ministered in 
the holiest mysteries. And by the end of the third 
century a strong feeling had grown up in the Church 
that its ministers ought to be unmarried men. This 
unscriptural opinion, as is often the case with religious 
errors, originated with the general body of the people, 
who however only carried out to its legitimate effects the 
teaching which they had received. Married priests began 
to be looked upon, in the popular estimation, as degraded. 
Some persons refused to accept their ministrations ; and 
although synodal decrees at first reproved this objection, 
the popular prejudice prevailed, and by the end of the 
fourth century the celibacy of the clergy was enforced ; 
and a married presbyter became a criminal. So directly 
was the apostolic rule contradicted, and that brand of 
the predicted apostacy, “forbidding to marry,’ was 
stamped upon the Church, to its lasting injury. 


1The sentiments which led to 
the enforcement of celibacy in the 
clergy, began to show themselves 
at the beginning of the 3rd century, 
when we see an expression of them 
in Tertullian’s indignant remon- 
strance against a presbyter, who 
should have committed the of- 
fence of marrying a second time. 
‘*What!” he exclaims, ‘‘do you, a 
twice-married man, venture to 
baptize, and to offer the oblation! 
Digamus tingis! Digamus offers!” 


These false notions of holiness 
went on infecting the Church more 
and more throughout this century ; 
and by the end of it another stage 
had been reached. It was then 
considered a discreditable thing for 
a presbyter to be a married inan at 
all; and some of the clergy were 
constrained to cast off their wives 
with a view to greater piety. 

The Canones Apostolici indeed 
condemn this practice, and order 
that any one who did so, should be 


OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 127 


9. In the primitive Church it was not thought unworthy, 
even of an Apostle, to engage in the work of a manual 
art, and to support himself, as St. Paul often did, by the 
labour of his hands. And to do this for his own sus- 
tenance, or to raise funds for religious and benevolent 
purposes, was long after still thought not unbecoming to 
the ministerial office. No rule, however, is given in the 
New Testament for such cases. The matter was left to 
each one’s own judgment; but presbyters and deacons 
who heartily devoted themselves to their Christian work, 
would, through want of time, if from no other cause, be 
increasingly withdrawn from secular occupations. And 
when in any Church a permanent maintenance for its 


officers is provided, it is clearly to the advantage of the 


community at large that they should be unencumbered 
with secular cares. Whether this should be enforced by 
law or not, is a question for each community to decide for 
itself ; but it should be remembered that it is a question 
unrestricted by any divine or apostolic command ; and is 
open to the free consideration of every Church, to be 
decided as times and circumstances may suggest. 

3. That it was a divine appointment inculcated by the 
Apostles, “that those who preach the gospel should live 


deposed from his office. "Exi6x0- who went so far as to refuse the 
πος, ἢ πρεόβύτερος, ἢ διάξονος, ministrations of a ‘‘married priest,” 


μὴ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖπα EXPaAd- 
λέτω προφάδει εὐλαβείας ἐὰν 
δὲ ἐεβαλῇ, ἀφοριζέσθω, ἐπιμέ- 
γῶν δὲ, xaGa1pe1obco.—(Can. ν.) 

And the Council of Gangra as 
late as a.p. 324, condemned those 


as some persons had done: but the 
Church authorities soon gave their 
sanction to the popular feeling 
which they had themselves created. 

For further particulars, see Ap- 
pendix A. No. xi. 


128 A FURTHER CONSIDERATION 


of the gospel,” is repeatedly recorded in the New Testa- 
ment ; and it would appear that very early in the Church 
payments were made to the clergy according to some 
scale of proportionate remuneration. For the words in 
1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the Elders that rule well be counted 
worthy of double honour,” when taken with the context, 
can scarcely refer to anything but a salary,—a money 
payment, or its equivalent,—which might be increased, 
when special care or labour had been bestowed. And 
further, it would possibly not be too much to infer from 
this text that Church officers at that time partly sup- 
ported themselves by their own means; and that when 
they gave up to the Church in godly ministrations the 
time and labour which they might have employed for 
themselves, it was thought that they should be remune- 
rated by an additional income from the church treasury. 

The source from whence such funds were supplied was 
at first the liberal contributions of Christians, such as 
those mentioned at the very beginning of the apostolic 
history. These were afterwards reduced to a more 
systematic liberality. Oblations were given every week 
for-clerical and ecclesiastical purposes; and sometimes, 
as mentioned by Tertullian, certain monthly contributions 


were collected. 


1Justin Martyr mentions that 
these voluntary contributions were 
made every Sunday—r7 τοῦ ἡλίου 
λεγομένῃ nuépa—and were placed 
in the hands of the presiding min- 
ister—Oi εὐποροῦντες δὲ nat 
ϑουλόμενοι κατα προαίρεσιν 


Before the end of the third century 


ExAOTOS THY ἑαυτοῦ, ὃ βούλε- 
ται διδωδι "καὶ τὸ GvAAE- 
γόμενον Tapa τῷ προεστῶτι 
anori@erar.— Apol.’ ὃ 88. 
Tertullian says of the monthly 
contribution, ‘* Modicam unusquis- 
que stipem menstrua die, vel quum 


ΟΕ ΕΣ CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 129 


houses and lands had been occasionally given or left by 
will, and Christian emperors having sanctioned such ac- 
quisitions, Church property rapidly increased. Before 
this the practice of giving tithes to the Church had been 
voluntarily begun ; and men of influence, such as Origen, 
and afterwards Jerome and Augustin, endeavoured to 
create a conviction that the Jewish law of tithes was 
obligatory upon Christians. In the fourth century, 
tithes were irregularly and uncertainly paid; and it is 
not clear when laws were first made to enforce them. 
In the fourth century it was the custom in some 
Churches for the bishop and his clergy to live together 


- in one house, and eat at the same table—like fellows in 


a college—their expenses being taken from a common 
purse. But from the manner in which such instances are 
mentioned it would seem that this was not the usual 
practice. In general each one of the clergy had his 
portion of the church revenues and oblations, which 


were managed by the bishop, distributed to him; and 


ΝΑ ek Te ee Oe ee 
= a 


velit, et si modo velit, et si modo 
possit, apponit.”—‘ Apol.’ ὃ 39. 

Not only money was given in 
these contributions, bnt sometimes 
fruit, fowls, beasts, &c., as men- 
tioned in the ‘Canones Apostolici,’ 
which direct that such things 
should not be presented at the 
‘‘altar,’’ but taken to the Bishop’s 
house—See Can. iii. iv. 
_ For a full account of the sources 
and the increase of clerical reve- 
nues, see Bingham. 

4That Augustin lived in this 


manner with his clergy at Hippo, is 
mentioned by his biographer, Possi- 
dius—‘‘Cum ipso semper Clerici 
una etiam domo ac mensa sumpti- 
busque communibus alebantur et 
vestiebantur.”’— ‘ Vita August.’ 
§ 25. 

And Sozomen says the same thing 
of the Church of Rhinocorura on 
the borders of Palestine and Egypt. 
κοινὴ δέ ἐότι τοῖς αὐτόθι 
Κληρικοῖς oiunois τε καὶ 
τράπεζα, καὶ τἄλλα πᾶντα.--- 
‘Eccl. Hist.’ vi. 1. 

9 


130 A FURTHER CONSIDERA TION 


Cyprian mentions that in his Church such distributions 
were made every month.» The beginning of the more_ 
modern system of parochial endowments may be traced 
to the middle of the fifth century, when it is said that it 
was first ordered that the clergy of each congregation 
should receive the revenues of their own Church. 

Questions connected with the endowments of a national 
Church, and the right of the national government to 
interfere with them, which have lately acquired so serious 
an importance, and may possibly ere long be agitated 
with a still deeper interest, cannot be determined by 
appeals to Scripture. There is nothing about them in 
the New Testament; and the laws and principles of the 
Jewish Theocracy cannot be justly applied to such cases. 
They are matters very grave indeed, and involving the 
gravest issues ; but they belong to the domain of politics, 
in the highest and noblest meaning of the word, and 
must be determined by reason, sound expediency, and a 
careful consideration of the nation’s truest good. 

4. There is not in the New Testament the slightest 
intimation that any peculiar or official dress was worn 
by Church officers in their public ministrations, or in 
private life. The vestments of the Jewish priests be- 
longed, like the rest of their prescribed distinctions, to 
that Temple service, which the Apostles did not imitate ; 
and there was no peculiar dress worn by those who offi- 


1<*Ceeterum presbyterii honorem honorentur, et divisiones mensurnas 
designasse nos illis jam sciatis, ut sequatis quantitatibus partiantur.” 
et sportulis iisdem cum presbyteris -—Cyprian ‘Ep.’ 34, end. 


ΟΣ Τ MINISTRY. 133 


ciated in the synagogues. The pallium, or cloak, a more 
simple garment than the Roman toga, was usually worn 
by Christians, or at any rate by those who were the more 
strict and austere in their mode of life; and no mention 
-is made of the use of any other for Church purposes 
When the Church was 


fostered, instead of being persecuted, by the imperial 


until after the third century. 


power, and began to exhibit more of ornament and 
display, a white garment, the original of the modern 
surplice, was worn by the officiating clergy in the ad- 
ministration of the sacraments.’ More splendid vest- 
ments, such as that presented by Constantine to 
Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, were gradually in- 
troduced in conformity with the rest of the sacerdotal 
system already established in the Church. 

5. The indelibility of Church Orders is a subject about 
which nothing is said in Holy Writ; but it is an opinion 
of long standing, encouraged by Rome, and not rejected 
by our own Church, that a man once ordained cannot 


1The use ofthe simple palliumby marked the different orders. The 


Christians, gave occasion to the 
sarcastic proverb used against them 
by the pagans, A toga ad pallium. 

The white dress is mentioned by 
Jerome, ‘Si Episcopus, presbyter, 
diaconus, et reliquus ordo ecclesi- 
asticus, in administratione sacra- 
mentorum candida veste proces- 
serit.’’—‘ Cont. Pelag.’ Lib. i. And 
also by Chrysostom. 

Ata later period, distinguishing 
vestments and other insignia 


Council of Toledo (a.p. 633), men- 
tions that all the three superior 
orders then wore the Orarium, a 
stole or scarf, while a Bishop had a 
ring and staff (annulus et baculus); a 
Presbyter, the planeta, or chasuble ; 
and a Deacon, the alba, i.e., tunica 
alba, an albe—or surplice. 

The mitre (mitra or infula) be- 
gan to be worn by Bishops about 
the 10th century. 


132 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 


either voluntarily, or by compulsion, give up the com- 
mission which he has received, and return to the ranks 
of the laity again. Accordingly, ordination has been 
described as “the grant of a peculiar commission and 
power, which remains indelible in the person to whom 
it is committed, and can never be obliterated or rased 
out, except the person himself cause it by his heresy, 
apostacy, or most extremely gross and scandalous im- 
piety.” But such a description is founded on the un- 
warranted supposition that a certain special grace or 
supernatural power is imparted by the act of ordination, 
mysteriously handed down by a succession from the 
Apostles; and that this therefore cannot be removed, 
unless it be sinned away by the recipient. But the 
power which gives a commission can also take it away. 
When therefore it is acknowledged, and so far as it is 
acknowledged, that ordination is the act of a Church 
giving its officers authority to minister in its behalf, it 
will follow that the same Church can revoke what it has 
“hus given. In the absence, therefore, of all scriptural 
_ direction, the indelibility of clerical orders is a question 
of expediency which every Church is at liberty to decide 
for itself. It may generally be advisable that the solemn 
engagement of the Christian ministry, especially in the 
case of a presbyter, should be for the whole of life; but 
there is nothing in the office itself, as there is nothing in 
the New Testament, to justify its being regarded, as some 
worthy men have regarded it, as a profane or monstrous 
thing for a Church to allow its orders to be rescinded. 


Er PURE Fy: 


THE LAITY, OR CHURCH BODY AT 
LARGE, 


WITH THEIR POSITION AND DUTIES. 


LV. 


THE LAITY, OR CHURCH BODY AT 
LARGE, 


WITH THEIR POSITION AND DUTIES. 


N endeavouring to give an outline of the ecclesiastical 
polity of the Apostles, it seemed expedient to ex- 
hibit first the ministry, which they established in their 
Churches, as presenting some of the most characteristic 
features of these societies. But the laity, or Church at 
large, must now be considered. After which some parti- 
culars respecting the relations subsisting between these 
two parts of the general body, and some notice of their 
discipline, government, and social life so far as it was 
affected by Church influences, will naturally follow in 
their place. 
I know not how it may appear to other minds, but for 
my part the first thing which strikes me in the general 
body of the apostolic Church, is the marvellous equality 


which sprung up—or rather, it may be said, burst forth— 
(135) 


136 THE LAITY, OR 


so suddenly did it at once appear in full completeness, on 
the very first day that the Church began. 

This equality, in the enthusiasm which seized the 
hearts of those who were baptized on the day of Pen- 
tecost, produced at the moment a holy communism. 
The new converts were so closely united, that they 
formed, as far as possible, one great family together— 
with a common life, and a community of goods—or, if 
not exactly what is now meant by a community of 
goods, at any rate such an overflowing liberality of heart 
and hand, that each one used his property as readily 
“They that believed were 
together, and had all things common; and sold their 


for others, as for himself. 


possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as 


every man had need.””* 


1 There is great reason to doubt 
whether what is commonly called a 
community of goods—amounting 
to a renunciation of all private or in- 
dividual property—ever existed in 
the apostolic Church, even at the 
very beginning. The following con- 
siderations, at any rate, go far to 
establish the contrary conclusion. 

1. In the first place, it is evident 
that no such custom was in exist- 
ence at a somewhat later period, 
when rich and poor found their 
place in Christian societies, and 
when, as is often seen in St. Paul’s 
epistles, men were exhorted to care 
for others as well as for themselves, 
and to give to those who were in 
need, each according to his ability. 


2. But much earlier than this, 
even at the time when self-denying 
men were selling their possessions 
for the benefit of the poorer Chris- 
tians, the case of Ananias and Sap- 
phira shows that the owners of pro- 
perty were under no obligation to 
give it up, but might give it or keep 
it in whole or in part, just as they 
were disposed to do. ‘* Whilst it 
remained, was it not thine own; 
and after it was sold, was it not in 
thine own power ?” 

3. Neither is this all. For Acts 
iv. 32-35, one of the passages 
which records that ‘‘ they had all 
things common,” contains intima- 
tions which show that even in those 
early days these words must not be 


σα 7 ΘΟ Υ ALP LARGE. 


137 


It was thought by Chrysostom that this community 
of life and property existed only among the three 


taken too literally, or pressed into 
the meaning of an absolute com- 
munism. For we are here informed 
that no one ‘‘said that aught of the 
things which he possessed was his 
own.” There were still then 
ἐς things which he possessed,” τῶν 
ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῶ, Only he did 
not say that any part of them ‘‘ was 
his own,” z6zov ezv ai, to be kept 
exclusively for his own use. And, 
further. when the lands or houses of 
such benefactors were sold the pro- 
ceeds were not given indiscrimin- 
ately to all, but went to a fund en- 
trusted to the Apostles, out of 
which, as occasion required, dis- 
tribution was made, ἐκαστῳ 
καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν εἶχεν, 
‘‘according as any one had need.”’ 
This was, no doubt, liberally done ; 
but this was notin the modern sense 
‘‘a community of goods.”’ 

4. But if this be so in Actsiv., 
can the circumstances have been 
very different in that earliest in- 
stance related in Acts ii. 44? Even 
in this case, there is the same ex- 
pression καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν 
ezyev ; and if in the former in- 
stance ‘‘having all things com- 
mon ’’ did not preclude the posses- 
sion of private property, must we 
say that it did so in the latter case ? 

The only circumstance which 
marks a difference in the alleged 
communism of Acts ii. is that ‘all 
that believed were together.” 
Probably, therefore, they took their 


meals—or the principal meal—in 
social parties arranged for that pur- 
pose, since their numbers were too 
great for all to meetin one room; 
and the requisite expenditure for 
these Christian Gv66zr1a was taken 
from a common purse. 

Besides these considerations, de- 
rived from the expressions used in 
the history, another argument is 
supplied by the known sentiments 
and practice of the Apostles, bear- 
ing directly upon this subject. It 
is an elementary and indisputable 
principle in Economics, ‘that a 
community of goods, as a permanent 
ordinance, is totally impracticable, 
except on one condition, namely, 
the abrogation of marriage in one of 
the two modes in which it may be 
abrogated ; that is to say, either by 
admitting a community of wives, 
or by the renunciation altogether of 
the sexual relationship. ..... 
cannot be necessary to prove that 
the family economy—the sacred- 
ness of the matrimonial connection, 
and the consequent dependence of 
children upon their parents—must 
very speedily break up any scheme 
intended to perpetuate the non- 
property principle.”’— (‘ Ancient 
Christianity,’ p. 521.) The Essenes 
among the Jews, and the monks in 
the Christian Church kept up a. 
communism among them, because 
celibacy was an essential part of 
their system. And, on the other 
hand, the honour assigned by the 


138 THE. LAITY, (OR 


thousand who first joined themselves to the Apostles ; 
and that they all took their meals together, as well as 
possessed all that they had in common. However this 
may have been, although the practice of thus living 
together—never commanded, and-unsuitable as it was 
for general adoption—did not long continue, yet the 
same mutual feeling of equality and close union mani- 
fested itself as strongly as ever, when with increased 
and increasing numbers “the multitude of them that 
believed were of one heart and one soul; neither said 
any of them, that ought of the things which he possessed 
was his own, but they had all things common: neither 
was there any among them that lacked; for as many 
as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and 
brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid 
them down at the Apostles’ feet; and distribution was 
made to every man according as he had need.” 

And later still, indeed throughout the apostolic age, 
and far beyond it, the same thing was plainly visible, 
however the expression of it varied in form and manner 
with varieties of time and place; “the brother of low 
degree rejoicing in that he was exalted, and the rich in 
that he was brought low.” The names of “brother,” and 
“friend,” by which they usually called each other; the 
form of the Christian salutation; and the spontaneous 
acts of loving-kindness, which abounded everywhere, 


Apostles to married life and family possibility of a community of goods 
religion [see the last part of this having, or being intended to have, 
Lecture] is conclusive against the any lasting existence in their polity. 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 139. 


testified that it was no mere short-lived unnatural ex- 
citement, but a deep-rooted and abiding principle which 
animated Christian men—an influence which might begin 
with enthusiasm, but could not end with it; a flame 
flashing out at first with dazzling brilliancy to settle 
down into a steady unwavering light. 

This equality observable in the early Church was 
as unlike as possible the dishonest, selfish, rapacious 
schemes of modern equalities and socialisms. They are 
born of a desire to seize and take away; but this of a 
desire to impart and give. It was essentially an equality 
of heart and feeling; and it was only incidentally, and 
by an easy and natural consequence, that it affected (as 
far as it did affect) men’s possessions and goods. It 
sprung up from a community of great and absorbing 
interests, and from the common possession of advantages 
of incalculable worth. 

How often is it seen even in secular things that the 
pursuit of some interesting object—some literary -or 
scientific study, or a fondness for some pleasing art— 
produces, as far as its influence can reach, a wholesome 
equality and communion between men of the most 
widely differing rank and social position; raising up 
the low, and bringing down the high, to the same level 
without unduly exalting the one or degrading the other! 
How strongly too can a common danger, or the enjoy- 
ment of a common benefit, bind men together who 
otherwise would have been separated and estranged! 
But the religion of Christ presented objects of pursuit 


140 THE LAITY, OR 


and interest infinitely more attractive and sublime than 
those of any secular art or study. It often associated 
in the greatest dangers those who had embraced it, It 
bestowed advantages, and conferred an elevation upon 
them, in comparison with which all earthly rank and 
wealth are trivial and poor. And thus it united men 
of all degrees together in mind and heart; and by 
actually making them equal in the highest things led 
them to regard their inequalities in less important 
matters as comparatively of little moment. 

Besides this, even now, in spite of the very artificial 
state of modern civilization, and the consequently wider 
dissociation of ranks and classes, genuine Christianity 
still produces a great effect in smoothing down the 
sharp distinctions between man and man;,. subduing 
pride and superciliousness in the rich and great; and 
softening the roughness of speech and manners in the 
low-born and illiterate, and supplementing often in a 
marvellous degree their want of culture and education. 
Such influences in a more simple state of society must 
have operated with a still greater force. 

But there is another peculiarity which specially marked 
the general body of the Christian Church, lying deeper 
beneath the surface than the equality just mentioned, 
and therefore not meeting the enquirer’s view so ob- 
viously at first, while it is still more deserving of his 
attention as a most essential property of the whole com- 
munity—a most distinctive characteristic of its nature 
and position—the very cause of its being what it was. 


CHURCH BODY ATI LARGE. 141 


This peculiarity indeed itself took the form of an 
equality, since it belonged equally to every member 
of the body—an equality of privilege or standing-ground 
in Christ, the divine Head of all and each one in the 
Church, in contradistinction to the equality of social 
intercourse, or property, or kindly feeling, exhibited 
visibly in the Christian life. But its own distinguishing 
character, and that from which it most justly takes its 
name, is Liberty. In Christ every Christian was de- 
livered from bondage, and made free—free from the 
bondage of sin, the bondage of condemnation, the bondage 
of fear and superstition, the bondage of ordinances, and 
rites, and burdensome ceremonial laws—from the bondage 
of all law, so far as he was led by the Spirit of life. 
And just as the Christian equality of self-denying kind- 
ness was utterly different from the selfish and rapacious 
equality which has usurped its name; so this Christian 
freedom was as opposite as possible to that lawless 
licence by which, when misnamed liberty, ignorant and 
unprincipled men have sometimes been deceived. The 
Christian man had liberty in Christ, not in Satan; in 
godliness, not in sin. It was the glorious liberty of the 
children of God, not the licentiousness of evil men. 

It was a truth clearly proclaimed by the Apostles, and 


1 How needful St. Paul felt it to excessive assumption of ministerial 
watch and guard this liberty, is authority, but from the entangle- 
shown by his strong and earnest ment of ceremonial observances. 
language in his Epistle to the Gala- Both of these, however, since his 
tians. In his time the Christian time have too soon and too long 
liberty was in danger, not from an wrought mischief in the Church. 


oy eee THE LAITY, OR 


received with undoubting and joyful confidence by the 
Church in those days, however it has been often unfor- 
tunately obscured or kept out of sight in later times, 
that every believer had himself an unrestricted access to 
Christ, and through Him unto the Father, without the 
intervention of any other person or thing whatever. 
That Jesus and His finished work, Jesus the Son of 
God, and the Son of Man, with His atoning blood and 
justifying righteousness, Jesus born into the world, 
dying, rising again, ascending into heaven, sitting at the 
right hand of the Father, and ever living to make inter- 
cession for us, was all that any man required for coming 
boldly, so to speak, into the presence of God, to receive 
the fulness of His favour and_ blessing ;—all that he 
needed to break down the barrier which sin had placed 
between him and the Holy One, to entitle him to be 
enrolled as a free citizen of Christ's kingdom, a son 
in God’s family, an heir of the heavenly inheritance. 
And as Jesus, the Christ, was the sole author and all- 
sufficient security of this heavenly freedom ; so besides 
Him there was no more need, or place, for any priest, 
or altar, or sacrifice, or mediator, or any one of what- 
soever office, name, or service to stand between any man 
and God, to present his prayers at the throne of Grace, 
or to bring back a blessing from above. . The rent veil 
of the Temple at the death of Jesus indicated that the 
“holiest of all’? was no longer to be hidden or closed 
against the approach of men, but “opened to all be- 
‘ lievers.” Instead of needing the priestly ministrations 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 143 


of another, each Christian was to be himself a priest, 
ealled and consecrated to a holy priesthood, to offer 
spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God—even the living 
sacrifice of himself, his soul and body—the sacrifices also 
of praise and thanksgiving, of self-denying kindness to 
others, and godliness of living for Christ’s sake. ‘‘ That 
which the priesthood before Christ had only typified 
and prefigured was now accomplished for all; and the 
duty of constantly realizing it by the oblation of his 
own heart became the priestly duty of each individual 
Christian.”’* 

Such then being the condition of the Christian com- 
munity with its most essential characteristics—a per- 
sonal, spiritual liberty in Christ, and a social, loving 
equality in the Church—the whole polity of the apostolic 
times was necessarily adapted to it; and may even be 
said to have grown out of this condition, as a natural 
organism of the common Christian life. From this the 
- true relations subsisting between the general body of 
the laity on the one hand, and the clergy or Church 
officers on the other, unfold themselves distinctly to our 
view. And the position which the laity occupied, and 
the part which they were expected to perform in the 
Church, is seen to be quite in harmony with this their 
normal and recognized status in it. 

It was a necessary consequence of this status that the 
Christian ministry instituted by the Apostles could not 


1 Guericke’s ‘Manual of the Antiquities of the Church,’ i. 1, 7. 


[44 THE LAITY, OR 


be a priesthood. In the preceding Lecture arguments 
were adduced to prove that the Christian ministers of 
the New Testament were not priests; but a considera- 
tion of the standing held by the lay-members of the 
apostolic Church shows that they cowld not have been 
so. It would have been quite at variance with the 
whole character of that Church, and inconsistent with 
the fundamental principles of its formation and coher- 
ence, that a literal, objective, separated priesthood 
should be established in it. 


was requisite, not on account of any spiritual functions, 


The Christian ministry 


which could not otherwise have been lawfully dis- 
charged; but for the sake of the solemnity and regu- 
larity which are essential in a religious and permanent 
society. There was no spiritual act which in itself was 
of such a nature that it might have been done by 
every individual Christian ;* but the general well-being 


1There are positively no sacred sidered valid, even in the most 


rites or acts which it is declared in 
the New Testament must be admin- 
istered by men ordained, or in any 
way separated from the general 
body of Christians. The two sacra- 
ments are justly considered the 
most solemn of Christian ordinan- 
ces ; but even for them such admin- 
istration is nowhere commanded. 

With regard to baptism, the 
Apostles evidently did not care to 
baptize with their own hands, but 
directed others to perform the rite. 
See Acts x. 48 ;1 Cor. 1. 14. And 
lay baptism has always been con- 


sacerdotal periods of the Church. 
Thus Jerome, ‘‘ Unde venit ut sine 
chrismate et episcopi jussu neque 
presbyter neque diaconus jus habe- 
ant baptizandi ; quod frequenter, si 
tamen necessitas cogit, scimus 
etiam licere laicis.’’—‘ Ep. adv. Lu- 
ciferianos.’ 

The celebration of the Eucharist 
at first included an actual supper, 
in imitation of the scene at its insti- 
tution. Andasat the Jewish Pass- 
over any person might preside, 
usually the master of the house— 
this was probably the case in the 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 145 


and healthy action of the whole body, required that 
known and responsible officers should be charged with 
certain religious duties in the midst of it. 
no mysterfes or rites of any kind too sacred to be 


There were 


touched by ordinary Christian hands, and demanding 
a separated caste of holier men for their pious cele- 
bration ; but it was absolutely necessary that all things 
should “be done decently and in order,” and that pro- 
vision for this should be uninterruptedly secured. 

It was again a necessary consequence of the acknow- 
ledged status of the whole Christian body, that the Church 
government ordered or sanctioned by the Apostles was 


not and could not be oppressive or overbearing, or such 


earliest times in the Christian 
Church also. 


And so Pressensé remarks that’ 


the words of St. Paul to the Corin- 
thians imply that all Christians 
might break the bread and bless the 
cup at the Lord’s Supper, and not 
an Officiating minister only ; for he 
says, ‘‘the bread which we break,” 
and ‘‘the cup of blessing which we 
bless.”’ ‘‘ Pour ce qui coucerne la 
Céne, Paul attiribue a tous les 
Chrétiens la bénédiction de la 
coupe, et la fraction du pain. La 
coupe de bénédiction que nous 
bénissons, . . . le pain que nous 
rompons.’’—Vol. ii. p. 224. 

The view given in the text is in 
accordance with the following pas- 
sage from a commentary on Eph. 
ivy. 11, by the author whose 
writings are appended to those of 
Ambrose, and who is therefore 


called the Ambrosiaster. ‘‘ Post- 
quam omnibus locis ecclesie sunt 
constitute et officia ordinata, aliter 
composita res est, quam coeperat. 
Primum enim omnes docebant, et 
omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque 
diebus vel temporibus fuisset occa- 
sio... Ut ergo cresceret plebs et mul- 
tiplicaretur omnibus inter initia 
concessum est, et evangelizare, et 
baptizare, et scripturas in ecclesia 
explanare. At ubi autem omnia 
loca complexa est ecclesia, conventi- 
cula constituta sunt et rectores, et 
cetera officia in ecclesiis sunt ordi- 
nata, ut nullus de clericis auderet, 
qui ordinatus non esset, pressumere 
officium, quod sciret non _ 5101 
creditum vel concessum. Et ccepit 
alio ordine et providentia guber- 
nari ecclesia, quia si omnes eadem 
possent et vulgaris res et vilis- 
sima videretur.”’ 


10 


ae THE LAITY, ὋΝ 


as to paralyze, or crush out the active and wholesome 
influence of popular thought and feeling. The Christian, 
individually set free from the moral and spiritual bondage 
of sin, was kept socially free from all ecclesiastical bond- 
age of priestcraft and ministerial domination. 

Though the whole Church might be termed a spiritual 
monarchy under Christ its King, each Christian com- 
munity was arepublic. The clergy were its representa- 
tive and responsible officers ; and as such were invested 
with official authority, were entitled to due respect and 
submission, and “had the right to rebuke and repress 
the extravagances of individual fancy or of congrega- 
tional caprice and self-will.” But on the other hand 
the laity possessed and exercised a large amount of 
power and influence, not only as the original earthly 
source and fountain of ecclesiastical authority, or on 
the occurrence of momentous emergencies; but also in 
the ordinary affairs of Church life. And to trace the 
nature of this power and influence as they are seen 
in operation during the apostolic and sub-apostolic 
period is especially interesting in the present day, when 
one of the greatest questions of the time is, What ought 
to be the place and voice of the laity in the government 
and administration of our Church? 

With the strictly official, or what may be termed the 
professional acts of the clergy, in conducting public 
worship or administering religious ordinances, the laity 
of course did not interfere, as soon as order had been 
taken for their regulation ; such duties having been then 


CHOAGH BODY “AL LARGE. 147 


committed to their ministers for the express purpose 
of confining them to their hands. But in all other 
Church matters; (1.) in the appointment and removal 
of the ministers themselves; (11.) in the general e@fi- 
cation and discipline of the Church; and (ii1.) in ques- 
tions of doctrine and dogmatic teaching, the laity had a 
voice, and were able to make it heard. 

I. The people took part in the selection and appoint- 
ment of Church officers. For although presbyters and 
deacons were ordained, and afterwards bishops were 
consecrated, by the hands of the ministry; yet as soon 
as any regular Church was formed, the popular voice 
elected or approved of them; and might on the other 
hand disallow and reject them, or might (as it would 
seem) with sufficient and reasonable cause depose or 
remove them from their office. It is true that the only 
clear and decided instance of such popular selection in 
the New Testament is in the case of the seven officers 
inentioned in Acts vi., and usually, but not indisputably, 
called deacons. -And there are in St. Paul’s pastoral 
Epistles no directions as to the manner in which pres- 
byters and deacons should be chosen. Clement, how- 
ever, a contemporary and friend of St. Paul, speaks in 
his Epistle to the Corinthians of presbyters ordained 
by the Apostles, or after them by other men of high 
repute, with the common assent and. approbation’ of the 


1 Tous ovy κατασταθέντας ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων, ἢ μεταξὺ UP ἑτέρων 
ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρων, δυνευδοκηδσαάσης τῆς ἐ:σιλησίας πάοσης.--- 
Clem. ‘ad Cor.’ § 44. 


148 


ΤΟ SOR 


whole Church ; so that the omission of such directions 


in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus may be due to 


the fact that the apostolic practice was then fully esta- 


blighhed and well-known. And for several centuries after- 


wards, although the tendency of the times was rather to 


silence the voice of the laity than to make it more 


distinctly heard, it is evident that a popular election 


or approval was considered requisite both for presbyters 


and bishops; and was looked upon as a regulation of 


apostolic authority.’ 


1 The people continued to havea 
voice and vote in the choice of 
bishopsand presbyters, and to have 
the right that none should be forced 
upon them against their will, until 
at least the middle of the sixth cen- 
tury. And, notwithstanding the 
increasing power of the episcopate, 
the bishops seem to have made no 
attempt to deprive them of this 
right. 

Eusebius (‘H. E.’ vi. 29), in his 
account of the election of Fabian as 
Bishop of Rome, (A. D. 236) says, 
τῶν yap ἀδελφῶν ἁπάντων, 
χειροτονίας ἕνεκεν τῆς τοῦ 
μέλλοντος διαδέξασθαι τὴν 
ἐπιόποπὴν, ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπελησίας 
δυγπεμροτημένων, When Fa- 
bian, who had not previously 
been thought of, was unanimously 
chosen from a dove having alighted 
on his head. 

Cyprian (4. ἢ. 250) frequently 
testifics to this effect ; thus— 

‘Tn ordinationibus clericis, fratres 
carissimi, solemus vos ante consulere, 


et mores ac merita singulorum 
communi consillio ponderare.’’-— 
Epist. 33, addressed to the clergy 
and laity at Carthage. 

‘¢ Factus est Cornelius Episcopus 
de Dei et Christi ejus judicio, de 
clericorum pene omnium testi- 
monio, de plebis que tunce adfuit 
suffragio, et de sacerdotum anti-— 
quorum et bonorum virorum col- 
legio.’’—Epist. 52. 

Cyprian also asserts that this 
custom was derived ‘‘ de traditione 
divina, et apostolica observatione,”’ 
and that in his time ‘‘apud nos quo- 
que et fere per provincias universas 
tenetur.’’—Epist. 68. 

Siricius, Bishop of Rome (A. D. 
384) says that one, having worthily 
filled the office of deacon, ‘‘ exinde 
jam accessu temporum presbyte- 
rium vel episcopatum, si eum cleri 
ac plebis evocaverit electio, non im- 
merito sortietur.’’ —‘Epist. ad 
Himerium,’ i. 10; in Labbé ‘Con- 
cil.’ vol. iii. p. 660, ed. 1769. 

Chrysostom was chosen to be 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 149 


Τὸ would further appear from Clement’s Epistle that 
Church-members might depose their presbyters. For 
whereas he wrote to the Corinthians expressly on 
account of the disorders in that Church, in which pres- 
byters had been deposed, he blames them, not simply 
for so doing, as if it were an unlawful assumption of 
power on their part, but only for acting thus in the 
case of those who had blamelessly, quietly, and without 
arrogance discharged their sacred duties. He seems 
therefore to admit that for a just and reasonable cause 
a presbyter might be deprived of his office by the 
popular judgment of the Church in which he ministered. 
And at a much later time it was distinctly acknowledged 
that no Church ought to submit to the ministrations of 
a presbyter or bishop of scandalous life, or who had 


Bishop of Constantinople ψηφίό- 
ματι ποινῷ ὁμοῦ πάντων, 
κλήρου TE φημὶ καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ.--- 
Socrat. ‘ Hist.’ vi. 2. 

Leo, Bishop of Rome (4. Ὁ. 440), 
writes, ‘‘Quum de summi sacer- 
dotis electione tractabitur, ille 
omnibus preponatur quem cleri ple- 
bisque consensus concorditer postu- 
larit.’”—Epist. 14. 5, Labbé ‘ Cone.’ 
vol. v. p. 1276. 

And Liberatus (4. p. 533), “Οὐ 
-omnium civium voluntate eligerent 
ordinandum Episcopum. . . collecti 
sunt ergo nobiles civitatis ut eum, qui 
esset vita et sermone pontificatu 
dignus, eligerent.’’—‘Breviar.’ 14; 
Labbé ‘Concil.’ vol. ix. p. 690. 

At these clerical elections dis- 


orders sometimes took place, and 
the emperors occasionally inter- 
posed their authority. By the laws 
of Justinian the elections were con- 
fined to the Optimates, which seems 
to be alluded to in the quotation 
from Liberatus, though he says the 
election was to be omnium civium 
voluntate. On the breaking up of 
the Roman empire, kings (espe- 
cially in France and Spain) had a 
voice in these appointments ; and, 
afterwards, ‘‘the interests of the 
people was secured (says Bingham) 
by their consent in parliaments ; 
and by such consent the nomination 
of bishops was reserved to princes, 
and the patronage of livings to par- 
ticular persons.’”’—Bing. iv. 2, 1. 


150 ΓΕ LAITY, Or 


himself departed from the essentials of the Christian 
faith; but that on the contrary it was bound to desert 
such an offender, and to choose another in his stead.! 

When Christian communities felt themselves obliged 
to adopt such strong measures, they naturally desired 
to justify their conduct in the eyes of other Churches ; 
and hence the practice gradually arose of referring such 
eases to the consideration of some synod or council; 
until as the Church system became more and more 
concentrated and consolidated throughout the Roman 
empire, the power of deposition at last slipped away 
from the hands of the people. 

II. In the exercise of the Church discipline and 
government, which were thought requisite im the 
apostolic age, the influence and action of the whole 
Church body may be very plainly traced. Although 
the authority of the ministerial office is distinctly acknow- 
ledged in the New Testament, and Christians are ad- 
monished “to obey them that have the rule over them, 
and to submit themselves ;’ yet the right and duty of 
the whole congregation to take a sensible, and indeed 
a prominent, part in the maintenance of necessary dis- 


cipline is equally enforced. If the very design of the 


1 Cyprian declares distinctly, that 
the people ought to separate them- 
selves from heretical bishops or 
presbyters. Referring to the com- 
mand of Moses, ‘‘ Depart, I pray 
you, from the tents of these wicked 
men,” he adds, ‘‘Propter quod 
plebs obsequens przceptis domini- 


cis, et Deum metuens, a peccatore 
prsposito separare se debet, nec so 
ad sacrilegi sacerdotis sacrificia 
miscere; quando ipsa maxime 
habeat potestatem vel eligendi 
dignos  sacerdotes, vel indignos 
recusandi.’’—Epist. 68. 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. [51 


Christian ministry is “the edifying of the body of 
Christ,” Christian laymen are also bidden to “edify 
one another.” If Christian ministers are “to reprove, 
rebuke, and exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine,” 
Christian laymen are also “to admonish one another,” 
and “to warn the unruly” and disobedient. And, as if 
to show beyond dispute that official ministerial functions 
and unofficial popular influence were quite compatible, 
and ought to be in active and harmonious exercise 
together in the Church, the two are united in a re- 
markable manner in a single utterance by St. Paul 
when he writes thus to the Thessalonians, “ Wherefore 
comfort yourselves together [or exhort each other, zapa- 
καλεῖτε ἀλλήλου], and edify one another, even as also 
ye do. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them 
which labour among you, and are over you in the 
Lord, and admonish [γουθετοῦντας] you; and to esteem 
them very highly in love for their work’s sake; and 
be at peace among yourselves. Now we exhort you, 
brethren, warn [γουθετεῖτε] them that are unruly, com- 
fort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient 
towards all men.” (1 Thess. v. 11-14.) Where the 
brethren in general are exhorted to do what is also 
expressly spoken of as a ministerial duty; and such 
exhortations are placed in close combination with direc- 
tions to esteem the ministry very highly for its work's 
sake. 

Nothing can be more distinct than this testimony 
from St. Paul to the Thessalonians; but this view of 


152 THE. PATTY, ΩΝ 


the ministerial and popular duties in the Church is 
not confined to this one passage. The Epistles in the 
New Testament addressed to Christian communities 
again and again present the authority and work of the 
ministerial office, and of the whole company of faithful 
people, in a similar light ; sometimes one, and sometimes 
the other, being pressed on the attention of the reader. 
Nowhere in them is the position of presbyters so 
exalted as to leave little or no power to be exercised by 
the people ; but with impartial faithfulness, the ministry 
is duly honoured while the authority of the whole 
Christian body is unhesitatingly maintained. There 
can hardly be a greater contrast than that which appears 
between the relative position of ministers and people 
as it is seen in the New Testament, and as it is displayed 
in the spurious or interpolated Epistles of Ignatius, which 
exhibit the ideas and practice of a later age when episco- 
pacy had enlarged its powers, and a dominant hierarchy 


was growing up in the Church.’ 


1 The manner in which the min- 
isters of the Church are dealt with 
in the Epistles of the New Testa- 
ment is remarkable, and, one would 
think, must sometimes have sur- 
prised Churchmen of the Nicene 
period, as it surely must their 
modern admirers and imitators; 
who think that the only privilege 
of the laity in Church matters is, 
“to hear and to obey.” 

In some of the Epistles, Churches 
are addressed and admonished 
without any notice at all being 


taken of their ministers, who re- 
main undistinguished in the gen 
eral body, as in Romans and 
Galatians. In some, the presence 
of ministers is acknowledged, but 
with only a passing allusion, if 
any, to the nature of their office, 
as in Ephesians and Philippians. 
In one, a message is sent to a min- 
ister, through the Church, bidding 
him ‘‘take heed to his ministry, 
that he fulfil it,’ as in Colossians. 
In another, presbyters are warned 
not to assume too high an authority, 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 163 


Nor is it only on a general view that the action of the 
laity is discerned. If the particulars of Church discipline 
are marked in more detail, the popular element is still 
more clearly seen. 

Church discipline, so far as it was concerned with the 
infliction of rebuke or punishment, exhibits in the New 
Testament three different degrees of. severity, corres- 
ponding pretty accurately with the different forms of the 
* ecclesiastical censures”’ of the third and fourth centuries, 
which were called “ admonitions,” “the lesser excom- 
munication,’ and “the greater excommunication,’ or 
expulsion from the Church. And in all these in the 
apostolic age the whole Christian body took an autho- 
ritative part. 

(a.) With regard to the first of these, ‘the admoni- 
tion,’ it has been already noticed that it was the duty of 
Christian laymen, as well as of the clergy, to warn and 
admonish the unruly. 

(o.) In the infliction of “ the lesser excommunication,” 
which was a breaking off of friendly association or 
communion with an offender for a time, while still 
regarding him as a member of the Church, the Christian 
brethren in general, and not the presbyters merely by 


strongly urged to assert their 
authority. 


by lording it over their people, as 
in the First of Peter. Yet all this 


is not without a distinct acknow- 
ledgment of the respect which was 
due to them. For Churches are 
expressly bidden to revere and 
obey them ; and in the pastoral 
epistles Timothy and Titus are 


A careful consideration of what 
is due from the clergy to the laity, 
and from the laity to the clergy, 
would not be unprofitable at the 
present time. 


154 THE LAITY, OR 


special virtue of their office, are bidden thus to mark 
their disapprobation of wrong-doing, and to vindicate 
the purity and healthy life of their society. Thus the 
Christians at Rome are bidden “to mark them which 
And 
the Thessalonians are urged “to withdraw themselves 
from every brother that walketh disorderly.” And “if 
any man obey not the Apostle’s word to note that man, 


cause divisions and offences, and to avoid them.” 


and to have no company with him that he may be 
ashamed.” 

(c.) And in the case of some grievous offence which 
demanded expulsion from the Church, while an inspired 
Apostle, as a divinely appointed ruler in the Church, 
might by his own authority excommunicate the offender, 
as we may perhaps say that Peter and John did to 
Simon of Samaria, and as Paul did to Hymenzus 
and Alexander; yet no minister of lower rank in the 
Apostles’ times appears to have had authority to do 
this. But so serious a punishment—the highest which 
the Church as a voluntary association,’ and as a Christian 
community ἡ could inflict—required the united action of 


1 Political communities, not be- 
ing altogether voluntary, exercise 
an absolutely coercive power. But 
in a purely voluntary community, 
such as the Christian Church, the 
ultimate penalty must be expul- 
sion ; all others short of this being 
submitted to as the alternative.— 
Archbp. Whately’s ‘Kingdom of 
Christ Delineated,’ p. 90. 


2 The Jewish dispensation being 
divinely founded on temporal sanc- 
tions, and wrought into the civil 
polity of the nation, used forcible 
penalties, and coerced religious 
offences with the sword. But the 
Christian dispensation rests only on 
spiritual sanctions, and its true 
power is entirely independent of 
civil laws. It therefore does not 


ee ee he ee - 


EPMA gh wale o Sapa τ κά 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. τος 


the whole society, solemnly assembled together, to con- 
sider the offence, and to impose the penalty: the same 
general assembly having authority also to remit the 
punishment, and, when satisfied of the offender’s repent- 
ance, to receive him again into the Church. (See 1 Cor. 
v. 4, and 2 Cor. 11. 6.) 

In the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, however, 
there is no mention whatever in the apostolic age of 
the imposition of penance, or subjecting a repentant 
offender to some painful infliction, or a long course of 
abasement and exclusion. Even in the case of the 
gravest sins such usages had not then been introduced ; 
nor could they plead with truth any apostolic sanction, 
when at a later date they so extensively prevailed. In 
the fourth century an offender such as he who was ex- 
communicated at Corinth by St. Paul’s command, would 
have been subject to long years of humiliating pen- 


“ance, before he was re-admitted into the Church; but 


St. Paul directed that he should be restored as soon 
as he had repented; and that without any forms of 
degradation or abasement. Different times and circum- 
stances might indeed recommend different regulations 
for such cases, which it was competent for any Church 
in its discretion to adopt; but the departures from the 
simple discipline of the Apostles, which soon began aiter 
they were gone, sayoured little of simplicity or dis- 
cretion. 


authorize the punishment of re- inflictions ; but unworthy members 


‘gious offences by any positive ofa Church may be expelled. 


156 fe LAT YS OR 


It is not necessary here to dwell ai any length on 
the remarkable expression twice used by St. Paul as 
descriptive of a judicial expulsion frcm the Church, 
when he terms it, “the delivering of the offender to 
Satan.” Little light is thrown upon tl.e precise mean- 
ing of these words by any powers or practices of the 
later Church. But that it involved scme temporal or 
corporal suffering designed to bring the offender to a 
sense of his sin, seems evident from St. Paul’s remark 
that it was done “for the destruction of the flesh, that 
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 
The power of imposing this infliction was confined to the 
apostolic age, and probably to the Apostles themselves. 
For even in the case of the Corinthian offender, though 
he was excommunicated by the whole Church, yet St. 
Paul says, “I have determined already .. . to deliver 
And this is rendered the 
more probable by the fact that later Church authorities, 


such an one unto Satan.” 


though not apt to be over-scrupulous in their assump- 
sions, very seldom ventured to use this formula in their 
ecclesiastical sentences; nor is there, I believe, any 
instance of its adoption by them, when they did use 


it, being followed by any peculiar effects.: Instead of 


1 There seems to be some reason 
for believing that in the early apos- 
tolic age Christians were to a cer- 
tain extent placed under a peculiar 
providence, or divine discipline ; 
and that not only did some bodily 
or temporal sufferimg come upon 


those who were excommunicated 
by an Apostle, but also that, with- 
out any Church censures, sickness 
or other painful visitations came 
upon them as warnings and chas- 
tisements on account of their sins. 
Thus, St. Paul distinctly tells the 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 187 


being contented with ordinary and lawful weapons, when 
this extraordinary power had ceased, the Church in an evil 
hour employed the aid of the civil magistrate to inflict 
punishment on ecclesiastical offenders; and thus from 
the time of Constantine, forgetful of its true mission and 
policy, it was gradually led on to those atrocious per- 
secutions which afterwards disgraced its history, and 
made it often a curse, instead of a blessing, to the 
nations of the earth. But there is nothing in the New 
Testament, nor in’ any recorded apostolic command or 
practice, which can justify such a departure from the 
will and mind of Christ,—such a contradiction to His 


assertion, “ My kingdom is not of this world.’’? 


Corinthians that ‘‘ many were weak 
and sickly among them, and many 
had died,’ because of their dis- 
orderly and profane behaviour ; 
and that these inflictions were in- 
tended to recall them from their 
wrong-doings, 1 Cor. xi. 30. 

St. James also seems to allude to 
something of the same kind, when, 
referring to the case of a Christian 
restored to health after a danger- 
ous illness, he says that ‘‘the 
prayer of faith shall save the sick, 
and the Lord shall raise him up, 
and if he have committed sins, they 
shall be forgiven him.”’—James v. 15. 

1The emphatic declaration of 
Jesus before Pilate respecting the 
nature of His kingdom, and the 
means by which it was to be sus- 
tained, ought for ever to have settled 
‘the question for His disciples, and 
to have taught them that His re- 


ligion was not to be propped up 
with civil penalties, or enforced by 
persecution. More especially when 
the whole conduct of Jesus Him- 
self, and His words on other occa- 
sions—the example of His Apostles, 
their directions for encountering 
grave errors and heresies, the 
manner in which they dealt with 
offenders in their own time, the 
whole temper and spirit of their 
teaching—all show that throughout 
the New Testament there is noth- 
ing to justify the use of force and 
compulsion for promoting the 
cause of Christianity. 

‘**Yet no sooner had the Church 
obtained civil power under Con- 
stantine, than the general principle 
of coercion was admitted and acted 
upon against the Jews, the heretics, 
and the pagans.’’ The Christians 
in the fourth and fifth centuries— 


158 


THE LALLY, OR 


III. Having thus seen the influential position assigned 


by the Apostles to the law element in preserving and 


like the puritans in the seven- 
teenth—began to persecute others 
when they ceased to be persecuted 
themselves. The New Testament 
refused to sanction such conduct ; 
but having long before gone to the 
Old Testament for the sacerdotal- 
ism, which the Christian Scriptures 
had denied them, they now drew 
arguments from the same source 
for persecution, as old Christian 
persecutors ever since have done. . 

The good and learned Jeremy 
Taylor in his ‘ Liberty of Prophesy- 
ing,’ feeling that ‘‘it is unnatural 
and unreasonable to persecute dis- 
agreeing opinions,”’ labours to per- 
suade himself and his readers that 
‘the Church in her distinct and 
clerical capacity was against de- 
stroying or punishing difference in 
opinion, till the popes of Rome did 
superseminate and persuade the 
contrary.” Yet he admits that 
‘‘the bishops did persuade the 
emperors to make laws against here- 
tics, and to punish disobedient per- 
sons with fines and imprisonment, 
with death and banishment respec- 
tively.”” So that even, according 
to the good bishop’s admission, 
little more can be pleaded in de- 
fence of the earlier Church than 
may with equal justice be pleaded 
for the ‘‘ Popes of Rome.” In fact 
the Church of Rome, in all the 
horrible persecutions with which 
it glutted itself, as long as it had 
the power, carried out—to a pro- 


digious extent, it is true, but still 
only carried out—the very princi- 
ples and practices which had come 
down from the fourth and fifth 
centuries. 

What those principles and prac- 
tices were, in accordance with 
which the Church authorities in the 
fourth century endeavoured to 
crush those, whom, however un- 
justly, they denounced as heretics, 
is sufficiently indicated by the 
treatment of Jovinian by the Italian 
bishops, amongst whom were Siri- 
cius Bishop of Rome, and Ambrose 
of Milan. Jovinian had ventured 
to protest against some of the gross 
errors of the Church, especially its 
extravagant doctrines on the sub- 
ject of asceticism and celibacy. For 
this he was condemned and excom- 
municated by Siricius, and after- 
wards by Ambrose; and subse- 
quently the Italian bishops pre- 
vailei upon the emperor Honorius 
to have him seized and scourged, 
with his abettors and attendants ; 
after which, Jovinian himself was 
banished to the island of Boa, a 
wretched rock off the Illyrian coast, 
where he ended his days. The ec- 
clesiastical historian, Fleury, says 
that Jovinian was scourged with 
thon zs loaded with lead, ‘‘ battu de 
laniéres plombées ;’? and that he was 
banished to the island of Boa, 
where, he adds with malignant 
irony, ‘‘on dit qwil continua jusques 
ala mort sa vie voluptueuse.” 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 159 


enforcing ecclesiastical discipline, or what may be re- 
garded as the moral aspect of the Church; it remains to 
be noticed that the laity held an influential position also 
in what may be contradistinguished as the reliyious 
aspect of the body, in questions, that is, of faith and 
doctrine which required any formal or authoritative deci- 
sion. Strange to say, the apostolic practice in this 
respect seems to have been in many quarters so long 
and effectually ignored, that not only in times of hier- 
archal tyranny, but in our own Church at this present 
time, it is not unfrequently regarded as an undoubted, 
axiomatic, truth that the laity have no authority in 
questions of Christian doctrine, and ought to have no 
voice in their discussion or decision. Laymen, it is 
sometimes admitted, may be allowed to take a certain 
part in Church government, order, and discipline; but 
the clergy alone, it is contended, are entitled to judge 
matters of faith and creed; as if to them exclusively by 
some divine appointment such judgment had been indis- 
putably assigned; and the only privilege of the laity 
was “to hear and to obey.” 

Yet so far from this being the case, it is evident from 
the New Testament that questions of dogmatic theology 
are to be considered by the lay members of the Church, 
as well as by the clergy; and that no Christian man is 
to resign his reason, or apprehension of religious truth, 
any more than his conscience, to the judgment of his 
pastor. 

1. Thus doctrines as well as moral precepts are in the 


160 LA LALLY, OF 


apostolic Epistles addressed to the whole body of be- 
lievers, and not handed over to the presbyters alone; 
as is obvious in those which, like the Epistles to the 
Romans and Galatians, dwell much on dogmatic truths. 

2. All Church members are called upon to form an 
opinion on doctrinal questions, and to judge whether 
what they are taught is true or false. The Berceans are 
commended for testing the truth of St. Paul’s own 
teaching. The Galatians are exhorted “to stand fast 
in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, 
and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bond- 
age,’ which erring teachers would lay upon them. The 
Thessalonians were to “prove all things and to hold 
fast that which is good.” And St. John addresses to all 
Christians, “ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the 
spirits whether they be of God.” 

3. And the New Testament clearly shows that Christian - 
ministers would sometimes teach false doctrine ; as when 
St. Paul warns the Presbyters of Ephesus that “some 
Would arise from among themselves speaking perverse 
_ things;” and St. Peter declares that there would be 
false teachers in the Church, even as there had been false 
prophets among the people of old. And when this 
should be so, it would necessarily be the duty of every 
Christian to refuse their teaching. 

4. But besides these general notices of Christian re- 
sponsibility which relate to the common course of 
ordinary Church life, it is manifest from a clear and 
decisive example of apostolic practice that the whole 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 161 


body of the Church, and not its ministers only, was 
regarded by the Apostles as the guardian and expositor 
of Christian truth; and that in any doubt or question 
as to what this truth required, when put into the dog- 
matic form of a Church doctrine to be received by the 
faithful, not the clergy only but the whole community, 
laic as well as clerical, were to be consulted, and accord- 
ing to there deliberate judgment to decide. For when 
the dispute had arisen as to the obligation of the Gentile 
believers to observe the Jewish law, involving so im- 
portant an alternative of doctrine as the justification 
of the Christian by his faith, or his justification by his 
legal observances, and it was felt to be so grave a crisis 
as to demand a special assembly or council of the 
Apostles to consider it—not the Apostles only, nor 
the Apostles and elders, but the whole Church with 
them—the Apostles, elders, and brethren formed the 
assembly, discussed the question, pronounced the de- 
cision, and issued the decree to the Church at Antioch 
. in their united names. 

Now in this case the Apostles, as the inspired and 
divinely commissioned founders and teachers of the 
Church, might justly have considered the question, and 
pronounced the ‘decree, by themselves. Whatsoever they 
bound or loosed on earth was ratified in heaven. It was 
their voice and judgment which gave the decree its deci- 
sive authority, and which we still regard as the final 
settlement of the dispute; nor without this apostolic 
yoice and judgment would the Church at Jerusalem have 

11 


162 1HE LAITY ΟΝ 


had any just pretension. to legislate for the Church at 
Antioch, or in other places. 

Yet, as an example to all future times, when no living 
apostolic voice, nor any other infallible human guide, 
would remain in the Church, they associated with them- 
selves “the elders and the brethren,” in order that every 
Christian community in all ages might learn after the 
same similitude to decide in similar emergencies; and 
that we might see that, while the Scriptures are the only 
treasure-house of all Christian doctrine, the responsibility 
of embodying such doctrine, when necessary, in Church 
forms, or dogmatic articles of belief, rests with the mem- 
bers of the Church at large, and ought not to be by 


them declined, or from them taken away." 


1 Tt is not without some show of 
reason and probability that the 
‘‘Council of Jerusalem” has been 
viewed in a different light from that 
given above. The twelve Aposiles, 
it has been said, were a repre- 
sentation of the twelve tribes, i. e. 
of the people of God, the true 
Israel, taken asa whole. Thus M. 
de Pressensé remarks, ‘‘Les Apd- 
tres sont la représentation idéale du 
veritable Israel, et comme ses ancé- 
tres spirituels semblable aux douze 
fils de Jacob. Ils ne figurent évi- 
demment pas la tribu sacerdotale, 
mais bien les douze tribus, c’est aA 
dire le peuple de Dieu.’’.—‘ Hist. 
de l’Eglise Chrét.’ vol. i. p. 376.) 

And then, this being so, the 
Apostles, elders, and brethren as- 
sembled on this occasion at Jerusa- 
lem, have been regarded as the 


true Israel of the New Covenant, 
met together, not so much to enact 
a theological decree, as to express 
their fraternization with the Gen- 
tile portion of God’s people, and to 
hold out to them the right hand of 
fellowship ; and so, for this pur- 
pose, the presence of the brethren 
—the people in general—as well as 
the Apostles and elders, was most 
appropriate and requisite. 

If this were conclusively estab- 
lished, the meeting at Jerusalem 
would obviously have no single 
point of resemblance to a Church 
council of the later type. But this 
view is hardly consistent with the 
fact that Paul and Barnabas went 
up to Jerusalem for the express 
purpose of obtaining—not an ac- 
knowledgment of the Gentile 
Churches—but a decision upon the 


ΠΗ ΘΙ BODY AR LARGE. 163 


Unfortunately in after ages, while the wholesome 
lesson, which this “first council” teaches, was quite 
neglected, the very poimt in which it could not be an 
example to post-apostolic times, but must ever stand 
alone in its authority, was perversely seized on by the 
misguided Church ; and while laymen were gradually 
excluded from ecclesiastical synods, and all the clergy 
also, except the bishops, these councils arrogantly claimed 
for themselves the language which was exclusively ap- 
propriate to the Apostles, and, as if they were successors 
to their supernatural power and inspiration, published 
their decrees as the decisions of the Holy Ghost.’ 


If from the public and formal action of the Church 
in grave questions of order, discipline, and doctrine we 
now turn to its less prominent and official operations, 
and enquire what influences, if any, affected the domestic 
or individual life, and whether any practices or customs 
sanctioned, if not commanded, by apostolic authority 
prevailed in the Christian society of that time ; although 
no full and precise information of this nature is given 
in the New Testament, yet enough is found in the way 
of incidental allusions, illustrated as they are by the 
more formal developments of the following ages, to 
furnish us with at least some partial conception of the 
social aspect of primitive Christianity. 
question of ΑΛΈΡΩΣ Jewels pate ἘΝ ἐπ tots ascount of the nature 
vances ; which very question was and authority of Church councils, 


debated and decided upon by this see Appendix B. f 
meeting. 


164 THE LAITY;-OR 


The earliest views that are presented to us in this 
department of the Church’s action, arose immediately 
from that striking characteristic of original Christianity 
already alluded to ; its unselfish, broad, outflowing spirit 
of equality or kindly fellowship, which exhibited itself in 
a loving care for the temporal no less than the spiritual 
wants of allits members. Taking up, as we may perhaps 
infer, the injunctions implied in the Saviour’s words re- 
corded in Matt. xxv., and rejoicing to serve and honour 
Christ in the persons of His suffering brethren, the primi- 
tive Church exerted itself from the very first in relieving 
and comforting the poor and afflicted, the widows and 
fatherless. And soon afterwards to support and educate 
destitute or deserted children, to receive and assist 
strangers and foreigners,—and, in times of persecution to 
visit and encourage martyrs or confessors,—were special 
objects of its ministrations. And that this sympathizing 
spirit was generally prevalent in ali the Churches, and 
that it was considered by the Apostles most desirable 
to keep it in lively action, is evidenced by the frequent 
directions scattered throughout the epistolary portion 
of the New Testament, “to remember the poor,” “to 
minister to the necessities of the saints,” “not to forget 
to entertain strangers,’ “to visit the fatherless and 
widows in their affliction.” 

The funds requisite for carrying out such benevolent 
purposes, as well as for the partial or entire support 
of the clergy, were supplied by the money which liberal 
contributors “laid at the Apostles’ feet,”’—by collections 


q 
; 
: 
> 
; 
5 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 165 


gathered generally throughout the several Churches,—by 
contributions made at the celebration of the Lord's 
Supper corresponding with the offertory among our- 
selves,-—and at a later period by certain monthly ἢ sub- 
scriptions or gifts which were customary in some Churches, 
and by special donations or legacies of money or other 
property. But pecuniary gifts, however liberal, were not 
in the earliest times deemed a sufficient discharge of 
Christian obligations. Personal services and labours 
were also required, and where possible were freely 
given. In such works of faith and self-denying kind- 
ness Christian women were especially distinguished : 
and several of these are honourably mentioned by name 
in St. Paul’s Epistles as “ having been succourers of 
many,” or “labouring much in the Lord.” 

Such works of loving-kindness soon assumed, as might 
have been expected, certain definite forms ; and regula- 
tions were made for their more orderly or effectual opera- 
tion. Thus in the very earliest years of the Church the 


a 


1The following is Tertullian’s 
account of these monthly subscrip- 
tions. ‘“‘Modicam unusquisque sti- 
pem menstrua die, vel quum velit, 
et si modo velit, et si modo possit, 
apponit ; nam nemo compellitur, 
sed sponte confert. Hac quasi 
deposita pietatis sunt, nam inde 
non epulis, non potaculis, nec 
ingratis voratrinis, despensatur, 
sed egenis alendis, humandisque, 
et pueris ac puellis re ac parenti- 
bus destitutis, jamque domesticis 
senibus, et si qui in metallis,” &. 


—‘Apol.’ i. 39. 

From the circumstance of these 
contributions being made monthly, 
a monthly distribution also among 
the presbyters seems to have been 
made in some places, and is alluded 
to by Cyprian, ‘‘ceterum pres- 
byterii honorem designasse nos illis 
jam sciatis, ut et sportulis iisdem 
cum presbyteris honorentur, et 
divisiones mensurnas equatis quan- 
titatibus partiantur.”’—‘ Ep.’ 34— 
end. 


166 THECLARLY , 7OR 


practice was begun at Jerusalem of providing a dinner 
or supper every day for Christian widows, including no 
doubt orphans and other destitute persons; and seven 
ecclesiastical officers were specially appointed for the 
orderly superintendence of these “ daily ministrations.” 
This custom, however, was apparently only for a time, 
since it is not elsewhere alluded to; and it was pro- 
bably found better in general “to visit the fatherless and 
widows” at their own homes, rather than to assemble 
them together into one place for this purpose. 

By the time that St. Paul wrote his first Epistle ia 
Timothy the charitable operations of Christian Churches 
had received, in one respect at least, a still more definite 
organization ; since associations of widows had been 
formed, who were supported by the funds of the Church, 
and who were expected to devote their time to the 
visitation of the sick and suffering, and under the super- 
intendence of the ordained ministry to assist in carrying 
out the different works, of Christian benevolence. 

Of these ecclesiastical widows some probably became 
deaconesses! of their respective Churches; and the rest 


% 


1TIn the post-apostolic Church the 
widows here mentioned were some- 
times supposed to have been in all 
cases deaconesses ; and the same 
opinion has been held in modern 
times. On the other hand, the 
very opposite opinion has been en- 
tertained, that they were persons 
charged with no active service, 
‘who, as suited their age and con- 


dition, were removed from all occu- 
pation with earthly concerns, and 
dedicated their few remaining days 
to devotion and prayer.” Thus 
Neander (‘ Hist. of Planting the 
Christian Church,’ 111. 5): ‘We 
must imagine such women to be 
among those widows, who, after 
presenting a model in discharging 
their duties as Christian wives id 


CHORCE ΠΟ AT LARGE. 


167 


appear to have very much resembled the District Visitors 
and Bible Women of modern days: and to have had 
their several districts or number of houses assigned to 


them for thei particular ministrations.’ 


That these 


visitors then, as well as now, did not always perform 
their duties judiciously is evident from St. Paul’s severe 


mothers, would now obtain repose 
and a place of honour in the bosom 
of the Church, where alone they 
could find a refuge in their loneli- 
ness; and, by their devotional 
spiritual life set an edifying ex- 
ample to other women..... Hence, 
it would naturally be an occasion 
of scandal, if such persons quitted 
a life of retirement and devotion, 
and showed a fondness for habits 
that were inconsistent with their 
matronly character.” 

It does not appear to me that 
either of these views is altogether 
correct. St. Paul’s account is 
hardly, I think, consistent with the 
supposition that all these widows 
were deaconesses, though deacon- 
esses may have been sometimes 
taken from theirnumber. Still less 
is it consistent with the opposite 
opinion that they had no active 
employment. The expression in 
1 Tim. v. 5, ‘‘continueth in suppli- 
cations and prayers night and day,” 
has perhaps helped to lead to this 
latter supposition ; but the words, 
MPOGMEV EL ταῖς δεήσεσι UAL ταῖς 
προδευχαῖς, will naturally mean 
attends regularly the public devo- 
tions of the Church ; in describing 
which, the same words, 67/615 and 


προδευχαΐ, are used in chapter 
11. 1, of this Epistle. And if there 
is any force in the meaning which 
I have ascribed to weprepyouevat 
τοὺς οἰκίας (see the next Note), it 
follows that they must have had 
some active duties assigned to 
them. Consider, also, what is said 
about the duties of aged women in 
Titus ii, And it is further to be 
noticed, that this institution of 
Church widows was not, in its 
original intention, confined to 
elderly women, who would be un- 
fit for active employment. 

1The words in 1 Tim. v. 13, 
seem to me, when duly considered, 
to justify the view which I have 
given above. Περιερχόμεναι 
TAS οἰκίας Cannot mean, asin our 
English version, ‘“‘ wandering about 
from house to house,’ but must 
signify, ‘‘going round,” or, accord- 
ing to a common idiom of the 
Greek participle, ‘‘while going 
round, to the houses.’’ The article 
Tas necessarily perticularizes the 
houses spoken of. What then are 
the particular houses? I answer, 
the houses specially assigned to 
them, which it was their duty to 
visit ; something in the manner of 
modern ‘‘ district visitors. 


168 We ΒΥ ΟΝ 


reproof of those widows who made their visits occasions 
of tattling and idle curiosity, instead of opportunities of 
Christian kindness and encouragement in well-doing. 
And such abuses probably formed one reason why St. 
Paul directed that more tried and experienced women, 
not under sixty years of age, should alone be placed 
upon the Church List.’ 

It is to be observed that it was considered right for 
those only, who were destitute, and had no near relatives 
to support them, to be thus maintained and officially 
employed by the Church; and that consequently they 
were required on their admission to undertake not to 
marry again, in order that the Church funds might not 


be spent unnecessarily, or upon those who might not be 


1The words of St. Paul in 1 
Tim. v. 12, γαμεῖν θέλουσιν, 
ἔχουσαι Ἐρῖμα, ὅτι τὴν πρώτην 
πίστιν ἠθέτησαν, have been vari- 
ously interpreted ; and our English 
version has increased the difficulty 
of the passage by rendering the 
word xpiua ‘‘ damnation.” 

It appears to me not at all likely 
that zi6riv ἠθέτησαν should mean 
“ἐ casting off their Christian faith,” 
or apostatizing; the expressions 
used for thisin the New Testament 
are, ‘‘to deny the faith ;’ as τὴῦν 
πίστιν ἤρνηται in this very chap- 
ter, and οὐκ ἠρνήδσω τὴν πίότιν 
μου, Rey. ii. 13; or else, ““ἴο de- 
part from the faith ;” as ἀποόστή- 
GOVTAL TIVES τῆς πίστεως. 1 Tim. 
iy, 1. 

I think that πίότιν here must 
mean the assurance or promise 


which the widows gave, on their 
admission, that they would remain 
unmarried ; and which they, there- 
fore, ‘‘set at nought,”’ or ‘‘made of 
no effect,” ἠθέτησαν, by marrying. 
This πίστις, or promise, was an 
engagement made to the Church, 
and not a ““ vow,” or a devoting of 
themselves by an engagement to 
God, the word for which in the 
New Testament is εὐχή. By break- 
ing this promise, they justly in- 
curred the censure of the Church, 
and so were ἔχουσαι xpiua, having 
‘‘judgment”’ passed upon them. 

It would further appear that 
young widows having been at first 
admitted on the Church List, some 
scandals had ensued, to prevent 
the recurrence of which candidates 
were in future required to be at 
least sixty years of age. 


ΟΡ ΣΟΙ LARGE. 169 


able to render any service in return. But this affords no 
eround for the supposition, afterwards entertained, that 
a second marriage was considered an unhallowed thing ; 
still less did it give any sanction or encouragement to 
the practice, which will be noticed more at length below, 
of inciting young women to make vows of celibacy and 
to devote themselves to the life of nuns, under the sup- 
position that they thereby acquired an amount of holi- 
ness not attainable in the virtues of a Christian family. 

It may be further remarked that the services of these 
Church widows were not designed to supersede or dis- 
parage similar ministrations on the part of others; for 
the widows were not to be admitted into the number, 
‘unless they had already been voluntarily engaged in the 
very same works of kindness as they would, after their 
admission, be required to perform officially. It was the 
usual practice commencing with, but continuing far 
beyond, the apostolic age, that every Christian woman, 
as far as she had opportunity, engaged in such ministra- 
tions; and Tertullian shows that in his time it was 
expected that Christian women would, as a matter of 
course, attend to the sick, go round to the houses of the 
poor, relieve the needy, and visit imprisoned martyrs ; 
and he gives it as one reason why a Christian woman 
should not marry a pagan, that she would not then be 
able without let or hindrance to engage in such occupa- 
tions.’ 


1*Quis enim sinat conjugem vicatim aliena et quidem paupe- 


170 LAE LAGIY ΟἿ 


It is evident that in the apostolic and sub-apostolic 
age, Christian women performed these works of charity 
and merey without forming themselves into Sisterhoods, 
or making any vows, or wearing an unusual dress, or 
calling themselves by fantastic names, or In any way 
relinquishing their ordinary, simple, natural, and there- 
fore most Christian, position in the family circle and 
household life. 

This excellent spirit of brotherly kindness, so con-, 
spicuous in the earliest age, continued in its effects to be 
one of the most notable features of the new religion, 
attracting the admiration or envy even of those who 
rejected its doctrinal truths. In the fourth century, 
especially, when the Church, delivered from persecution, 
was free to extend and display its influences without 
restraint or fear, the new names of Hospitals or Infirma- 
ries, of Almshouses for the aged, Orphanages, Foundling- 
hospitals, and. Strangers’-homes, became words in common 
use. Yet, as Augustin remarks, it was the names only 
of some of these that then were new; the things them- 
selves having existed with less publicity and prominence 
long before.’ 

Nor was the benevolence of the several Churches con- 
fined to the indigent of their own respective congrega- 
tions; but foreign Churches were included in their 


Shy ta oe Quis in carcerem ad oscu- ‘Such names were voGoxo0jeia 
Janda vincula martyris reptare pa- or  valetudinaria, γηροκομεῖα 
tietur?..... Si cui largiendum erit dppavorpopeia, βρεφοτρο- 
horreum, proma preclusa sunt.”— geia, tev odoyera. 


Tertull. ‘ad Uxorem,’ ii. ὃ 4. 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 171 


sympathies, and aided by their means. The collections 
made for the Christians at Jerusalem by the Churches 
of Antioch, and throughout the Roman provinces of 
Macedonia and Achaia, are well known instances in the 
apostolic period ; and succeeding centuries followed the 
example. | 

With respect to the customs and habits of domestic 
and social life, the Christianity of the New Testament 
made no abrupt or sudden change, except in those things 
which necessarily and in themselves were sinful. It was 
to be the salt of the earth by gradually interpenetrating 
the corrupted and corrupting mass of heathen civiliza- 
tion, and not by shrinking from all contact with it. The 
Christian, therefore, was enjoined to cast off the vile- 
nesses and abominations which heathenism produced 
or palliated ; but he was neither commanded nor recom- 
mended to renounce the society or friendship of his 
heathen neighbours. He was to separate himself from 
sin, not from the sinful; to be not of the world, yet in it. 

Thus he was utterly to forsake idolatry, but he was 
not forbidden to sit down with idolaters in social fes- 
tivity ; and the only reason why he was dissuaded from 
joining in a sacrificial feast in an idol’s temple was—not 
that he must thereby incur any pollution in himself—but 
a consideration for the scruples of weaker brethren. He 
was to avoid all the intemperance and excess, the 
“drunkenness and revellings,” so common then at festive 
meetings ; but he might accept invitations to dinner or 
supper at a heathen neighbour’s house, and mix with 


172 THE LAITY OR 


freedom and courtesy in such social gatherings. The 
Bacchanalian and Aphrodisian songs so prevalent in 
heathen companies were to have no countenance from 
him; but music and singing were by no means for- 
bidden; on the contrary, both heart and voice alike 
might rejoice in inoffensive or sacred melodies. This, 
indeed, seems to have been an abundant source of 
recreation in Christian families, and Christian songs and 
hymns soon multiplied greatly, by which at meal times, 
and all family or friendly unions, they expressed their 
habitual faith, and hope, and joy. 

Thus St. Paul sums up the whole duty of Christians in 
such particulars in one broad and comprehensive prin- 
ciple, “All things are lawful, but all things are not 
expedient.” The Christian’s liberty is wide and uncon- 
fined ; but he must consider faithfulness to Christ before 
all things ;—he must consider others as well as himself, 
and must abstain from acts which would wound the 
conscience of a brother, or encourage a sinner in his sin. 

It is not surprising that this wise and liberal simplicity 
was not, and, perhaps, could not be, always observed in 
the following centuries, when the Church was brought 
into such trying and deadly collisions with heathenism 
and heathen powers, making at the same time promis- 
cuous friendly intercourse almost impossible, and a dis- 
tinct avowal of the Christian profession more imperative 
than ever. Errors were then sometimes committed on 
the side of godly zeal, which led men to regard as un- 
lawful, what Paul or Peter would have allowed; and in 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 173 


the fear of countenancing even a semblance of idolatry 
to abridge the liberty of Christ.’ 
criticize the errors of such men than it is to imitate their 


But it is easier to 
faithfulness. Similar errors may sometimes now be 
seen in the conduct of godly men in their contact with 
the surrounding worldliness of nominal Christianity : but 
the opposite, and less excusable, and more fatal error, 
it is to be feared, is much more usual, when Christians 
act as if they were of the world, as well as in it—as if 
they had no religious principles to acknowledge and 


maintain.’ 


1 The refusal of a Christian sol- 
dier to wear the crown of laurel on 
a military festival, which gave occa- 
sion to Tertullian’s treatise ‘De 
Corono Militis,’ is an example of 
such mistaken conscientiousness. 
This crown had no connection with 
idolatry ; but, as a badge of victory, 
was worn in honour of the em- 
peror on days when he gave lar- 
gesses to the soldiers. Tertullian, 
however, entirely approves of the 
soldier’s conduct, having at that 
time, it is supposed, adopted the 
principles of Montanism. 

With a similar scrupulosity, 
Lucian the Martyr is said to have 
chosen to die of hunger rather than 
eat things which had been offered 
to idols, when his persecutors 
would allow him no other food. 

And when the Emperor Julian 
had all the meat in the butchers’ 
shops at Constantinople sprinkled 
with idolatrous lustrations, the 
Christians there would eat nothing 


but bread ; although, according to 
St. Paul’s direction, they might 
have eaten, without scruple, what- 
ever was sold in the shambles. 

The Christians at Antioch, under 
the same circumstances, acted with 
more wisdom, and took no notice 
of the emperor’s petty spite. 

Valentinian, in his younger days, 
according to a story told by Theo- 
doret, went as a captain of the 
guard with Julian to an idol’s 
temple ; and when a drop of the 
lustral water fell on his coat, he 
struck the man who carried it a 
blow in the face ; for which he was 
banished by the emperor. Theo- 
doret commends him !—See Bing- 
ham, xvi. 4, 14. 

2It is almost impossible for us 
now to form an adequate idea of 
the innumerable difficulties and 
fearful trials which beset the Chris- 
tian in the second and third cen- 
tury. 

Tertullian gives us some account 


΄ 


174 


THE LAITY, OR 


And if from these social aspects of Christian life we 
look more closely within the domestic walls at the in- 
fluences there at work in the Apostles’ days, we may see 
enough to convince us that by no means 'the least of the 
triumphs of the doctrine of Christ were to be found in 
the Christian family. Family religion among the Jews 


indeed was not unknown; 


of these difficulties, in his treatise 
on Idolatry, which had mixed itself 
up with and polluted the whole 
course and framework of civil and 
social life. 

A Christian had to give up or 
avoid all the many trades and arts 
which were connected with idols 
and idol worship, the numerous 
festivals of false deities, invitations 
to idolatrous sacrifices, some civil 
and military offices, some common 
expressions and forms of speech. 

The relation in which he stood 
to the emperor, who was the 
universal deity of the paganism of 
the Roman empire, and whose 
statue was everywhere worshipped, 
afforded another source of difficulty 
and danger. 

But greater, and more pressing, 
and more unavoidable than these, 
were the trials and dangers which 
beset Christian life from the gross 
demoralization and fanaticism of 
the masses of the population. The 
pagan religion, which had sunk 
into contempt in the first century, 
and seemed to be dying out, burst 
out afresh with renewed vigour in 
the second and third. The old 
oracles, mysteries, and other super- 


and pleasing features had 


stitions, were revived in great 
force. And this revival in the 
masses—the rudest and most igno- 
rant parts of the population—by 
its violence and fury carried away 
with it the better educated, who 
had previously laughed at the 
popular creed. In the Augustan 
age, it was the upper classes who 
were corrupt; but in the second 
century the whole lower popula- 
tion had become grossly demoral- 
ized, as well as fanatical. 

Apuleius gives a dreadful ac- 
count of the state of things at that 
time. See also the graphic narra- 
tive of Pressensé—Series ii. vol. 
II. p. 1—25. 

What must have been the condi- 
tion of Christian families living in 
the midst of such abominations! 
It is no marvel that they sometimes 
made mistakes. The marvel is that 
they held fast their Christian in- 
tegrity, and were not swallowed up 
in the deluge of debauchery and 
superstition. Nothing but the 
force of their divine religion, and 
the living power of the Divine 
Spirit in their hearts, could have 
kept them from year to year in the 
midst of such an ordeal. 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. [75 


once been seen in the domestic life of Pagan Rome, 
before the decay of the Republic and the establishment 
of the Empire brought in a flood of demoralizations in 
their train. But at the commencement of the Christian 
era, throughout the most important portions of the 
Roman dominions, there was in general very little 
within the family circle, especially among the upper 
classes, to relieve the debased condition of religion and 
morals which was visible outside it. It was here that a 
most happy change was at once begun, wherever the 
preaching of the Apostles was received and bore its 
fruit. And itis not unworthy of remark that the first 
apostolic proclamation of the Gospel in Europe by the 
visit of Paul and Silas to Philippi illustrates the planting 
and early growth of family religion in the Church. It 
was at Philippi that occurred the first recorded instances 
of whole families being Christianized, when Lydia “and 
her household,” the Jailor “and all his,’ were baptized 
into the Christian faith. The effects of such a faith, with 
its earnest realization of divine truth, its unselfish spirit, 
its equalizing privileges combined with orderly submis- 
sion, made each Christian household a little centre of 
light and purity in the midst of the corruption all 
around. And many passages from the Epistles of St. 
Paul and St. Peter show how highly they appreciated 
these effects, when we find them exhorting Christian 
men, women, and children, by the very highest consi- 
derations, to the due performance of all their home 
duties ; and calling upon them as husbands and wives, as 


176 THE LAITY, OR 


parents and children, as masters and servants, “to adorn 
the doctrine of God their Saviour ” in all the occupations 
of their ordinary life. “ Henceforth,” it has been well ob- 
served, “ the worship of the household plays an important 
part in the divine economy of the Church. As in ~ 
primeval days the patriarch was the recognized priest 
of his clan, so in the Christian Church the father of 
the house is the divinely appointed centre of religious 
life to his own family. The family religion is the true 
starting point, the surest foundation, of the religion of 
cities and dioceses, of nations and empires.” Lightfoot’s 
‘Philippians,’ p. 56. 

It so happens also that the work of Paul and Silas at 
Philippi serves to indicate the two great social revolu- 
tions effected by the Gospel, to which the growth and 
maintenance of family religion were principally due. 
‘The case of the Slave-girl “ possessed with the spirit of 
divination,’ and the fact that the first congregation 
addressed by Paul in that place consisted of women, and 
that Lydia was the first convert, exemplify the Christian 
influences which began at once to lead the way to the 
abolition of slavery and the elevation of woman to her 
_ proper place in the social system ; and by means of these 
changes to alter the whole character of domestic life. 

The abolition of slavery was brought about by the in- 
direct and gradual operation of Christian principles, and 
not by any direct or violent denunciation of this nefarious 
but inveterate evil. Apostolic Christianity did not order 
the Christian master to emancipate his slaves, or bid the 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 177 


Christian slave to rebel against his master. But besides 
the general lessons of caring for others as well as for 
ourselves, it taught both master and slave that in Christ 
they stood upon equal ground: the master, that he had 
a Lord over him in heaven with whom was no respect of 
persons; the slave, that he was Christ’s freeman, how- 
ever he might be in bonds on earth. And this imme- 
diately effected a marked amelioration in the slave’s 
condition, relieving bondage from its most galling bur- 
dens, until its ultimate removal could be secured. The 
story of Onesimus, with the touching Epistle of Paul to 
Philemon, show how apostolic Christianity dealt with 
such questions, and with what marvellous tact and 
feeling an Apostle could respect the civil rights of a 
master, while securing freedom and brotherhood for a 
runaway slave. 

The elevation of the female sex was a result which 
followed with more rapidity, wherever the religion of 
Jesus was received. The position of women among the 
Jews being much more honourable than in most Gentile 
nations, the Apostles had in this respect but little pre- , 
judice to overcome, when they began the formation of 
Christian Churches. And the devotion and loving faith- 
fulness of the women who ministered to Jesus during His 
abode on earth,—the manner in which he received them 
as His disciples and friends,—the remembrance that He 
never uttered a reproach against the sex in general, or a 
word of severity to any individual woman, while to some 


He accorded the highest praise,—the knowledge that 
12 


178 VE. LATIY, OR 


among His disciples no woman ever betrayed Him, 
denied Him, or forsook Him,—and that it was women 
who were the last at the cross and the earliest at the 
sepulchre,—must all have taught the Apostles, if they 
needed any such teaching, what position women were 
entitled to hold in the social economy of the Church. 

Accordingly, in the very first meetings of the few 
faithful disciples between the Ascension and the day of 
Pentecost, the presence of ‘the women and Mary, the 
mother of Jesus,” is expressly mentioned ; the spiritual 
gifts in the primitive Church were bestowed upon women 
as well as men; the relief of widows was a special object 
of apostolic care; and wherever the name of Christ 
was preached, women were invited and welcomed into 
the Church,—were admitted equally with men to all 
Christian privileges, and showed themselves equally 
ready to receive religious truth,—equally faithful in 
obeying it,—equally self-denying in all good works,— 
equally courageous and patient in danger and tribula- 
tion. Hence in a Christian family the wife and mother 
occupied at once her destined place. 

Nothing can surpass in simplicity and force, and in a 
just estimate of the relationship between the sexes,— 
nothing can more happily describe the place to which 
woman was restored in the apostolic Church,—than the 
short admonition of St. Peter, every expression of which 
is full of important meaning :—“ Likewise, ye husbands, 
dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour 
unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being 


CHURGH BODY. AT LARGE. 179 


heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be 
not hindered.” And the conjugal union—the source of 
all other family relationships—being thus hallowed and 
honoured, communicated a happy Christianizing in- 
fluence throughout the household. 

And what views of Christian womanhood in the 
primitive time may be gained even from the scanty 
notices of female names contained in the New Testa- 
ment! How much may be learnt by a thoughtful 
realization of what is implied, if not expressed, in the 
little narrative of Dorcas, “full of good works and alms- 
deeds which she did,’ and the incidental mention of 
“the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname 
was Mark ;”—how much from the glimpses given us of 
Christian women in Romans xvi., and of Kuodia and 
Syntyche in the Epistle to the Philippians ;'—how much 
especially from what is said of Priscilla, the wife of 
Aquila, a woman apparently superior in mental power 
and force of character to her husband, himself a man 
of note,” capable of instructing and convincing “an 
eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures” like Apol- 
los, being herself neither carried away by his eloquence, 


1 In Philippians iv. 2, both the 


names are feminine, and the first 
should be Euodia, not Euodias ; 
and these two are the women men- 
tioned in the following verse, which 
ought to be translated, ‘“‘help them, 
since they laboured with me,”’ συλ- 
λαμβάνου αὐταῖς, αἵτινες, &e. 

2 The manner in which Priscilla 


is always mentioned whenever 
Aquila’s name occnrs, her name 
being even put before his in Rom. 
xvi. 3; and the circumstance that 
she is described as taking a part in 
the interview with Apollos, and in 
all the Christian works and dan- 
gers of her husband, seem to justify 
this opinion of her character. 


180 THE LALLY, .OR 


nor afraid of his learning, nor scornful of his mistaken 
views, and courageous together with her husband with 
a holy boldness even unto the danger of her life, 
to secure the safety of St. Paul; yet never stepping 
beyond her proper sphere, or giving occasion for any 
just reproach ! 

Such was the honour given by the Apostles to married 
life and family religion, and such its happy results."| And 
such results have always more or less obviously ensued 
whenever apostolic Christianity has been allowed to do 
its work. But what a strange and lamentable contrast 
is presented by the Church of the Nicene period in the 
principles and practices then advocated by the highest 
authorities, with reference to married life and Christian 
womanhood! At that time the delusive teachings of 
Gnosticism, though repelled by the Church as a formal 
heresy, had deeply infected all classes of Christians with 
some of the notions of its false philosophy. And one of 


from young widows being admitted 
on the Church list, he directs that 


1§t. Paul in 1 Cor. vii. gives a 
preference to a single life, espe- 


cially in times of persecution and 
distress, provided that no violence 
be done to personal feelings; but 
he commends no vows of celibacy, 
nor attaches any special sanctity to 
that state. And, knowing what 
human nature is, he writes in this 
very chapter as a general rule, 
‘‘Nevertheless, to avoid fornica- 
tion, let every man have his own 
wife, and every woman have her 
own husband.” And when some 
scandals had arisen at Ephesus, 


such candidates be in future re- 
fused, and that they should get 
married again instead: “1 will, 
therefore, that the younger widows 
[τὰς vewrépas, not γυναϊπας, 
but the widows before spoken of ] 
marry, bear children, guide the 
house, give none occasion to the 
adversary to speak reproachfully.” 
1 Tim. v. 14. But all this wise 
advice was before long utterly dis- 
regarded by the post-apostolic 
church. 


CHURCH BODY AT LARGE. 181 


the consequences of this was the exaltation of Asceticism 
in general, and of Virginity in particular, far, far above 
any holiness or virtue to be found in the married state. 
Without denying, as some Gnostic heretics did, that 
matrimony was a good and lawful estate for Christian 
men and women, celibacy was declared to be something 
infinitely higher and more holy, conferring a supernatural 
meritoriousness and perfection. | 

Young men were encouraged to devote themselves by 
irrevocable vows to a life of unmarried continence, not 
because of any “present distress,’ but because they 
would thereby be raised above all measures of earthly 
excellence, and would make themselves fit recipients of 
the highest spirituality and the most glorious sanctifica- 
tion. The eloquence of the greatest bishops and 
preachers of the time was exerted to persuade young 
women and girls to make vows of perpetual virginity, 


1 ΤΆ is said of Ambrose, Bishop of 
Milan, that he was pre-eminently 
zealous in extolling the glories of 
virginity ; and that his burning elo- 
quence persuaded so many hun- 
dreds of young girls to hecome 
nuns, that mothers forbade their 
daughters to go and hear him, for 
fear of their being induced to join 
the number. 

““§. Ambroise recommandait 
avec un zéle tout particulier la 
virginité. Ses paroles ardentes 
retentirent jusqu’ en Afrique et 
inspirérent ἃ des centaines de 
vierges la force de se consacrer au 


Seigneur. Les méres défendaient 
a leurs filles d’aller entendre les 
sermons d’Ambroise, tant elles 
craignaient qu’il ne les entrainat 
par son éloquence a préférer la vir- 
ginité aux engagements de mar- 
iage.’’—‘ Dictionnaire Catholique.’ 

These remarks are fully borne 
out by the extant writings of Am- 
brose on this subject, abounding 
as they do with the most extrava- 
gant encomiums on the life and 
condition of nuns, and the exalted 
merit and glory of their de- 
voting themselves to this angelic 
state. 


182 ΨΥ OR 


by assuring them that a nun was in an ineffable manner 
the Bride of Christ, and was a being of superhuman holi- 
ness, of celestial perfection,—a very angel upon earth, to 
stand hereafter the very closest to the throne of God, and 
even now to be gazed upon with awe and trembling 
admiration by all beholders, as if one of the cherubim 
had come down from heaven! The success of such 
preaching was great; and was followed, as might be 
expected, with very dreadful results. A miserable sub- 
stitution of a materialistic, factitious, unnatural sanctity 
for the pure and genuine holiness of apostolic Christi- 
anity generally prevailed: family religion was by com- 

parison degraded in the common estimation of men; 
married men and women were regarded as ἃ very 
inferior sort of Christians; and the Nemesis of the out- 
raged laws of nature and of God came down, to its fear- 
ful dishonour, upon the Church. Examples of this state 
of things in the fourth century are given us by the best 
contemporary authority, even by one who, like all the 
rest, favoured and promoted the system, while declaim- 
ing against its natural effects. Under the very shadow 
of the Cathedral of Constantinople, within the sound οὗ 
Chrysostom’s fervid sermons, and subject to his episcopal 
supervision, the shameful and shameless conduct of 
monks and nuns, not then confined to cloisters and 
convents, became a public scandal in the Church. In- 


1 This account of the institution self, contained in two addresses 
of celibacy and its results is taken apparently delivered in bis church, 
from the words of Chrysostom him- and entitled, πρὸς τοῖς ἔχοντας 


ΕΤΟΥΣ AT LARGE. . τὲ 


deed, some of the worst moral and religious enormities 


of the monastic and conyentual life, in the worst period 


of the Church of Rome, were equalled, if not surpassed, 


at Constantinople in the Church of the fourth century. 
If the Nicene Church is to be held up to English 
Christians as their authority and guide, as many are now 


endeavouring to bring to pass, it will be well for its real 


teaching, with its necessary results, to be generally and 


correctly brought to light. 


παρθένους συνειδσακτους, and 
περὲ τοῦ μὴ TAS UAVOVIKAS 
συνοικεῖν ἀνδράσιν. They are 
in the first volume of his works 
in the Benedictine edition, and 


more than bear out all that has 
been stated. For some further 
information on this subject, see 
Appendix A. 


EECTURE Υ. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


¥. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


MONG the manifestations of the outward life of 

- the Christian Church a prominent position is 
necessarily occupied by the places, forms, and times of 
its public worship. Indeed, to the popular eye and mind, 
these are wont to appear as the very essence of a religion, 
—the religion itself. And, however superficial and.de- 
fective such a view may be, it cannot be denied that the 
public worship of a Church deserves much attention, both 
as an effect and as a cause of its actual condition. The 
nature of its ritual, and the manner in which its united 
devotions are conducted, in any Christian community, 
when free to act without restraint, necessarily result from 
its hold and acceptance of religious truth or error, and 
furnish a fair criterion of the state of Christian doctrine 
prevalent in the body. But the administration of its 
ceremonial also re-acts with much force upon the religious 


opinions and creed of habitual worshippers, and becomes 
(187) 


188 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


a cause, or at any rate a very efficient means, of pro- 
ducing and preserving among them the dogmatic theology 
which it most prominently exhibits. An unsound or 
questionable liturgy, and superstitious or unhealthy 
devotional practices, both imply and promote corre- 
sponding disorders in a Church’s inner life; while 
liturgical purity, if it does not always preserve it from 
all departures from the faith, supplies a ready and whole- 
some instrument for its revival and recovery.’ 

A consideration therefore of the public worship of the 
apostolic Church will not be without its interest, even 
though we can gather from the New Testament no full 
account of its devotions ; but only scattered notices, not 
sufficient to satisfy our curiosity, yet enough for our 
profitable instruction. 

The absence, indeed, of numerous details of the public 
services in the apostolic Churches,—the omission of all 
record, even of regulations which the Apostles must have 
made for the guidance of Christian congregations in 
their religious exercises,—is not without its grave signi- 


ficance and beneficial results. It shows us, at any rate, . 


1 Τῦ is a perfectly legitimate pro- 
cess of reasoning to infer from the 
contents of ancient liturgies now 
extant, that the doctrines involved 
in them were held and taught by 
the Churches where, and at the 
times when, these liturgies, as 
they stand, were used. Thus, the 
learned Dr. Neale, in his ‘ Tetralo- 
gia Liturgica,’ undertakes to prove 


from ancient liturgies called by 
apostolic names, that certain doc- 
trines contained in them were 
taught by the primitive Church ; 
and if all the conditions of the 
argument were fulfilled, the con- 
clusion would have been most 
fairly established. But in this he 
entirely fails. See further on this 
point, Note (2), p. 227. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


189 


that Churches are unfettered by any divine laws, but 


such as are of broad general principles, in their ritual 


observances and forms of worship. It has preserved us 


from possibly being entangled in a superstitious venera- 


tion for apostolic practices unsuitable to our times and 


people. it leaves us free to institute and cherish the 


reasonable service of spiritual devotion with such a cere- 


monial as may best exhibit and retain the simplicity of 


Christian truth, in accordance with the wants and feel- 


ings of our own place and generation.’ 


1 «¢ Why should not the Apostles 
or their followers have committed 
to paper, what we are sure must 
have been perpetually in their 
mouths, regular instructions to 
catechumens, articles of faith, 
prayers, and directions as to public 
worship and administration of the 
Sacraments?....Paul says to the 
Corinthians, ‘The rest will I set in 
order when I come ;’ and so doubt- 
less he did...... Is it not strange 
then that these verbal directions 
should nowhere have been com- 
mitted to writing? 

“Tf the hymns and forms of 
prayer, the catechisms, the confes- 
sions of faith, and the ecclesiastical 
regulations, which the Apostles em- 
ployed, had been recorded, these 
would all have been regarded as 
parts of Scripture ; and even if they 
had been accompanied by the most 
express declarations of the lawful- 
ness of altering or laying aside any 
of them, we cannot doubt that they 
would have been in practice most 


scrupulously retained, even when 
changes of manners, tastes, and 
local and temporary circumstances 
of every kind, rendered them no 
longer the most suitable. The 
Jewish ritual, designed for one 
nation and country, and intended to 
be of temporary duration, was fixed 
and accurately prescribed; the 
same divine wisdom from which 
both dispensations proceeded, hav- - 
mg designed Christianity for all 
nations and ages, left Christians at 
large, in respect of those points in 
which variation might be desirable. 
But I think no human wisdom 
would have foreseen and provided 
for this. That anumber of Jews, 
accustomed from their infancy to 
so strict a ritual, should, on intro- 
ducing Christianity as the second 
part of the same dispensation, have 
abstained, not only from accu- 
rately prescribing for the use of 
all Christian Churches for ever the 
mode of divine worship, but even 
from recording what was actually 


190 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


But while thus benefited by what has been omitted, 
we may notice with advantage what has been “ written 
for our learning” on this subject, which will include a 
consideration of the places of worship,—the public wor- 
ship itself,—and the religious times and seasons of the 
apostolic age. | 


I. Places of Worship. 


Since the practice of Christians meeting together | 


for united prayer and praise, as believers in Jesus 
Christ, began with the very beginning of the Christian 
Church, it is evident that several places of worship 
must have been required immediately after the day 
of Pentecost, when the three thousand converts joined 
themselves to the Apostles. And since there could 
not, for some considerable time at least, be any 
buildings expressly erected for this purpose, they must 
have used the most suitable rooms that they could pro- 
cure. Possibly before long, at any rate at Jerusalem, 
some of the Jewish synagogues, whose congregations 
had become Christians, were used with some slight 
alterations for Christian services,—the place, as well as 
the government and orderly arrangements of the syna- 
gogue being adopted by the Church. (See Lect. IIT. 
p- 100.) But such cases would not be numerous, and the 
in use under their jowendizoctions, Spin] eee Whately’s 
does seem to me utterly incredible, ‘Kingdom of Christ Delineated,’ 
unless we suppose them to have p. 290-292, and taken from his 


been restrained from doing thisby ‘Essays on the Omissions of Holy 
special admonition of the Divine Writ.’ 


ROUBLIC WORSHIP. IOI 


Christians must in general have had places of assembly 
for themselves. Such places are indeed expressly named. 
as early as in the second chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles, and in connection with the very first formation 
of the apostolic Church. They are afterwards repeatedly 
mentioned in the New Testament, being always called 
by the same name (οἶκος), which became the ordinary 
term for a Christian place of worship ; and in the Eastern 
Church continued long after the Apostles’ time to be 
often used in the same sense, even when the place 
was a building expressly erected for the religious ser- 


vices of a Christian congregation.’ . 


1 Οὐεία and O7zx0s. 

The two words οὐσεία and o7%0s 
very frequently occur in the New 
Testament, and are in our version 
almost always translated indis- 
criminately ‘‘a house.’ But their 
meanings in the original are very 
distinct, and ought not to be con- 
founded. 

Oxita is the material house—the 
actual building. It occurs 94 times 
in the New Testament ; and only in 
four of these is it used to signify a 
family, according to the common 
metaphor, by which the name of a 
place is transferred to the persons 
whoare init. These four passages 
are in Matth. x. 13, xii. 25 (where 
Luke xi. 17-has ozx0S), Mark iii, 
25, and 1 Cor. xvi. 1. 

Ozuos occurs 110 times in the 
New Testament, and only in one of 
these is it used to signify a material 
house like o¢x7a@ ; namely, in Luke 


xii. 39, ‘‘would not have suffered 
his house (τὸν οὗκον αὐτοῦ) to be 
broken through ;’ where Matth. 
xxiv. 43, has o¢uzav; and even here 
the idea, intended by St. Luke to 
be conveyed by the word οὗτος, is 
probably not that of a mere house, 
but the house with all its con- 
tents,—‘‘his house and goods ;” 
just as it is used in Homer, e. g., 
Ov γὰρ ἔτ᾽ avoxerad ἔργα 
TETEVYATAL, οὐδ᾽ ἔτι καλῶς 

Οὗκος ἐμὸς διόλωλε.--- Odyss.’ 
ii. 64, and elsewhere. 

The general use of 070s in the 
New Testament exhibits two prin- 
cipal significations, under each of 
which some varying shades of 
meaning are found— 

1. The most frequent meaning of 
07x05 is ““α family,” or household, 
with a more or less distinct refer- 
ence to the house as containing it ; 
thus, in Matth. ix. 6, the first place 


192 


POBLIC::WORKSHTP. 


The meaning of this word is unfortunately lost to the 


English reader of the New Testament, from its being 


in which the word occurs, ὕπαγε 
εἰς τὸν οἵἷκόν Gov “go unto 
thine house,” means, go to thy 
family and friends at home ; which 
explanation is actually added in 
Mark v.19, ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν O1KOV 
Gov, πρὸς TOUS δούς. Hence the 
word is sometimes very properly 
translated ‘‘ home,” as in this place 
of St. Mark, ‘‘go home to thy 
friends,” as also in 1 Cor. xi. 34, xiv. 
35, and elsewhere. 

From this meaning it followed 
that o7%0S was the word to signify 
‘‘house,”’ in the sense of a family 
of descendants, or a separate race ; 
as, ‘‘the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel, οἴκου I6pand.” Matth. x. 
6. ‘*Of the house of David, é€ 
οἴκου Aafis.” Luke i. 27. 

2. The second meaning of 07%0$ 
nearly resembles that of the Latin 
word cdes in the singular number, 
and signifies an apartment, hall, or 
building appropriated to some 
special purpose, particularly a 
sacred purpose. Thus, in Luke 
xiv. 23, ‘‘that my house may be 
filled,’’ where 07x05 is the hall or 
room in which the guests were as- 
sembled; in Matth. xi. 8, ‘‘in 
kings’ houses”—éyv τοῖς oi3015 
τῶν βασιλέων, in the halls or 
palaces of kings. So in Acts x. 
30, Cornelius says, ‘‘I was praying 
in my house,” meaning by ἐν τῷ 
οἴκῳ μου, the apartment to which 
doubtless he retired to pray. 

Hence o7x0s5 is the word always 


used for ‘‘house’’ in a religious 
sense as applied to the Jewish 
Temple; as ‘‘My house shall be 
called the house of prayer,” ὁ 
O1HOS μου OLKOS προδευχῆς HAN- 
θησεται, Matth. xxi. 13. ‘*My 
Father’s house,” τὸν οἵπον τοῦ 
πατρός μου, John ii. 16; while ‘‘in 
my Father’s house,’ John xiv. 2, in 
a different sense, is ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ 
τοῦ πατρός μου. The same word 
070S isalso used in the Septuagint 
of the Temple, orany place in which . 
the divine presence was especially 
acknowledged ; as, in Gen. xxviii. 
17, ‘*the house of God,” οἷος 
Θεοῦ. And so also ofxoS is em- 
ployed in speaking of the Christian 
Church under the similitude of a 
sacred building, or spiritual temple, 
as in 1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. ii 5. 

Now this word ozzos (never 
otxia)is the one always used in the 
New Testament as the common 
name of the places where Christians 
met for religious purposes. The 
‘‘upper room”’ where the Apostles 
and their earliest adherents after the 
Ascension ‘‘ continued with one ac- 
cord in prayer and supplication,” is 
probably meant by ‘‘the house (rov 
oiuxov) where they were sitting,”’ in 
Acts ii. 2; and the word is after- 
wards indisputably applied to 
places of Christian worship in nine 
other passages. Actsii. 46; v. 42; 
Vili. 3 ; xx. 20; Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 19,;..Col. 1ν.. δ᾽. Πρ ἀν 
Philem. 2. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 194 


translated, “a house ;” whereby not only is the force of 
the original passage impaired, but in some cases a quite 
erroneous notion is necessarily suggested. As there is 
no one suitable English word exactly corresponding with 
it, it may in this connection be rendered “a worship- 
room ;’ and the substitution of this term for the word 
“house,” in several passages in which it occurs, will 
greatly elucidate their meaning, while it will at the same 
time more clearly exhibit this early Christian usage. Thus 
in Acts 11. 46, the sacred historian informs us that the 
Apostles were in the habit of “breaking bread,’—not 
“from house to house ’’—as if they celebrated the Lord’s 
Supper in private fanzilies one after another—but “ at 
different worship-rooms,” where religious assemblies were 
held by Christian congregations... In Acts y. 42, it is 


related that “daily in the Temple,’ and—not “in every 


Long after the apostolic age, the 
same word o7zx0S, either alone or 
with some explanatory addition, 
continued to be used as one of the 
appellations of Christian churches, 
i.e., places of worship; thus, in 
directions for building a church, 6 
οἴμεος ἔστω ἐπιμήκης καὶ nar 
ἀνατολὰς τετραμμέν οΞς.--- Οοπ- 
stitut. Apostol.’ ii. 4. 

Oixovs ἐκηλησιῶν otxodo- 
eivy.—Euseb. ix. 9. 

Πρὸ θυρῶν τῶν οἰκῶν τῶν 
evutnpicv.—Chrysost. ‘Hom.’ 
24, de Verb. Apost. 

Tov οἶκον τῆς προδευχῆς.--- 
Basil, ‘Epist.’ 63, ad Neo. Cesar. 

Evurnptovs οἴκους wxodoun- 


oav.—Sozomen, ‘Hist. Eccl.’ ii. 5. 

1The words xar’ otxov in Acts 
11. 46, could not mean ‘‘ from house 
to house,’’ whatever were the mean- 
ing of 07x05; the words must signi- 
fy ‘‘at different 0201,’ and the use 
of the singular number, and with- 
out the article shows that, when 
St. Luke wrote his narrative, the 
custom of meeting in these worship- 
rooms for united devotions had be- 
come perfectly common and 
familiar ; otherwise he would have 
written xara τους οἴκους. Just 
as we should say, “All the people 
in the city were at church,’ mean- 
ing in the different churches of the 
place ; whereas a stranger, unused 


43 


- 


194 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


house,” as if the Apostles paid pastoral visits to every 
Christian family, but “in different worship-rooms, they 
ceased not to teach, and to preach Jesus as the Christ. 

When Saul “ made havock of the Church,” we are told 


in Acts viii. 3, that he entered,—not “into every house,” 


1 


which would not have answered his purpose,—but “ into 
the different worship-rooms” at Jerusalem, where he 
might find Christians actually assembled and engaged in 
their religious services, and so might obtain positive proof 
against them. When St. Paul, in Rom. xvi., sends his 
salutation to Aquila and Priscilla, and “to the Church 
in their house,” he does not mean, as the English reader 
is apt to imagine, the Christian members of their family, 
but the congregation of Roman Christians, who met in 
the worship-room, which they had provided. And the 
Judaizing teachers, whom Titus is warned against, are 
described in Tit. 1. 11, as subverting by their erroneous 
doctrines,—not “ whole houses” or families, though that 
would be bad enough,—but “whole worship-rooms” 
or congregations, whom they led astray. The false 
Christians, on the other hand, who did beguile the 
members of families, were said to “ creep into houses ”— 
εἰς τας οἰκίας, NOt o%xovs—2 Tim. 11. 6. 


to this custom, would say ‘‘they worship-rooms; as the modern 
were in the churches.”’ missionary appeals to men in the 


1The practice of the Apostles 
alluded to in Acts v. 42, corre- 
sponds exactly with that of zealous 
missionaries now. They addressed 
the general population in the 
Temple, and their converts in the 


bazaar or other public place of 
resort ; and as soon as he is able, 
assembles the native Christians in 
a room or church, for religious 
worship and instruction. 


TE Ὁ ΨΨ ΨΥ 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 195 


These places of religious assembly were probably at 
first those large upper rooms which are several times 
alluded to in the New Testament, 
ig on one occasion expressly mentioned as used for 
Christian worship at Troas (Acts xx. 8), when St. Paul 
addressed the disciples there on his last journey to 
Jerusalem ; besides the upper room noticed in the first 
chapter of the Acts. Probably also “the house of Mary, 
the mother of John, whose surname was Mark,” men- 


And such a room 


tioned in Acts xu. 12, “where many were gathered 
together praying,” contained one of these worship-rooms 
well known to Peter, who went there immediately on his 
deliverance from the prison. 

This apostolic practice of assembling in the rooms of 
private houses continued to nearly the end of the second 
century, as we may infer from Justin Martyr’s descrip- 
tion of Christian congregational worship in his time, 
and from the express declaration contained in the ac- 
count of his martyrdom.’ 


1 Τὴ Justin Martyr’s account the 
place where Christians met has 
no name given to it; he merely 
describes it as ‘‘ where the breth- 
ren were gathered together to en- 
gage in common prayers.”’ Thus 
of a newly baptized convert, he 
says, ἐπὶ τοὺς λεγομένους 
ἀδελφοὺς ἄγομεν, ἕνθα συνη- 
γμένοι εἰδὲ ποινὰς εὐχαῖς 
ποιησόμενοι. And of the assem- 
bling for Sunday worship he merely 
writes, 77 τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ κάντων κατα πόλεις ἢ 


ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 
συν ἕλευσις yiyvetar.—‘Apol.’ i. 
85, 87. 

And in the account of his exam- 
ination by the Prefect Rusticus, at 
Rome, before his martyrdom, it is 
mentioned, that in reply to the 
question as to where he assembled 
his disciples, he said that he neither 
had nor knew of any other place of 
assembling, except the upper room 
of the house where he lodged. ποῦ 
συνέρχεσθε ; ἢ εἰς ποῖον ToxoY 
αθροίζεις τοὺς μαθήτας δου; 


190 


PUBLIC «WORSHIP. 


At the end of this century or the beginning of the 
third appear the first indication of buildings specially 
appropriated to divine service; but these seem to have 


been of a simple and unpretending nature.’ While 


Answer. Ἐγὼ ἐπανῳὼ μένω 
τινος Maprivovrov Τιμοτίν ων 
βαλανέίου,. . καὶ οὐ γιγνώσκω 
ἄλλην τινὰ συνέλευσιν, εἰ μὴ 
τὸν éxéeivov. --- ‘Acta Martyrii- 
Justini,’ June 1. 

1 The names given to Christian 
places of worship. When places 
had been built expressly for Chris- 
tian worshippers, they naturally 
acquired new names besides the 
original appellation of the simple 
οἴεος. The word Church (éxxAy- 
67a) is not used in the New Testa- 
ment to signify a place of assembly. 
The passages sometimes alleged to 
prove this meaning, such as 1 Cor. 
xi. 18, 22; ‘‘When ye come to- 
gether in the Church,” and “ de- 
spise ye the Church of God?’ do 
not supply the requisite proof, 
notwithstanding their acceptance 
in this sense by such learned men 
as Joseph Mede in his ‘ Discourse 
on Churches.’ The fact that this 
meaning makes sense in these pas- 
sages, and accords with modern 
phraseology, is no proof that the 
word is so used. It is nothing 
better than a puerile delusion to 
suppose that the translation of a 
word must be correct, because it 
makes sense, and accords with our 
own usage. It isa much sounder 
principle to affirm that, when a 
word has been clearly seen, in a 


large number of examples, to have 
a certain definite meaning or mean- 
ings, we are not at liberty to assign 
to it (in the same authors) a differ- 
ent signification in some isolated 
passage, where, although the sense 
may admit of this translation, the 
ordinary rendering is perfectly in- 
telligible. 

Now the word éxxln6za occurs 
in the New Testament 115 times, 
and in all its acknowledged shades 
of meaning it signifies an assembly 
or body of persons, and not a place ; 
therefore it is contrary to sound 
scholarship to assign to it a differ- 
ent meaning in the two solitary 
verses of 1 Cor. xi. when the 
established sense of a Christian 
congregation equally harmonizes 
with the context. 

It is, of course, a very usual thing 
for the name of an assembly of 
persons to be applied to the place 
where they assemble, or vive versd ; 
but it so happens that there is no 
well authenticated instance of the 
word ‘‘Church” being used for a 
place of worship, before the third 
century, a passage from Clement of 
Alexandria (4. Ὁ. 204) being the 
earliest authority for this use. Ov 
γὺν τὸν τόπον, aAld τὸ 
ἀθροιόμα τῶν ἐπλεκτωῶν, éx- 
uAnoiav καλῶὼ.---"ϑίχοχα. Lib. vii. 

Other ordinary names were éx- 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 197 


Christianity was in general an object of suspicion, and 
Christians were liable to be persecuted, either by popular 
violence or magisterial authority, it was obviously a 
matter of prudence, not to say necessity, on their part, 
not to make their places of assembly or any of their 
And in 


times of special persecution even rooms in private houses 


proceedings too conspicuous to the public eye. 
were too dangerous to be frequented. And then any 
retreat where two or three could assemble in the name 
of Christ became a Christian sanctuary. 

But in the latter portion of the third century, and 
especially in the comparatively quiet times between the 
death of Cyprian and the persecution of Diocletian, 
more ample and spacious churches were erected. And in 
the reigns of Christian emperors sometimes the splendid 
public halls, called Basilice, were granted to the Church 
for Christian worship ; sometimes magnificent churches 
were built and adorned by imperial munificence. 

In the apostolic age, and during the time when 
Christian worshippers met in private rooms, or in edifices 
of a simple style, there was no distinction made between 
different portions of the building: men and women were 
not separated in the congregation;* neither was any 


HANGLAGTHPLOY, KUPIAKOY, from 
whence our words ‘‘kirk” and 
‘‘church,” 106 €VKTNPLOY, ναός; 
and in the Western Church, domus 
ecclesie, dominicum (which also 
signified the Lord’s Day, and the 
Lord’s Supper), templum, and ti- 
tulus. : 


1 The custom of having separate 
places in a church for men and for 
women, and making them sit apart, 
prevailed in the fourth century ; 
but this was not so in the begin- 
ning, as may probably be inferred 
from the short notice in Acts i. 14, 
and from the practices in the 


198 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


form of consecration then used, or any particular sanctity 
or reverence attached to the place. The sanctity was in 
the worshippers, who met together in the Saviour’s 
name; and the reverence was given to His spiritual 
presence, which had been promised to those who should 
be thus assembled. At a later period, coincident with 
the time when magnificent structures had superseded 
the simple worship-rooms, Christian churches were di- 
vided into the two—and later still into three—parts, 


which the ecclesiastical system in its progressive de-_ 


velopment required for duly carrying out its principles. 
For when, during the third century, the tide of sacer- 
dotalism had set in, and Christian presbyters were looked 
upon as priests, who had a sacrifice to offer upon an altar ; 
this imitation of the Jewish Temple in its officers and 
services was naturally followed by a further imitation of 
its material structure in the arrangements of Christian 
churches. Two parts separated from each other were 
now considered necessary for the ecclesiastical economy ; 
—the sanctuary in which the “ altar” stood, and which, 
being regarded as more holy than the rest of the building, 
was appropriated to the clergy alone, while the body of 
the church, marked off from it, was occupied by the 
general congregation. | 


Corinthian Church alluded toin1 παλατὸν οὐδὲ ταῦτα ἦν τὰ 


Cor. xi. Chrysostom, who says that 
the custom had been introduced 
on account of the bad behaviour 
of men and women when they sat 
together, adds, ὡς ἔγωγε ἀκούω 
τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ὅτι τὸ 


τείχεια... καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποότό- 
λων δὲ ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνδρες nat 
γυναῖκες ἦσαν. .. οὐκ ἠπκού- 
Gare ὅτι ἦσαν συνηγμένοι 
ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες ἐν τῶ 
ὑπερώω.---“Ἤοχα. 74, in Matth,’ 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 199 


The architectural arrangement of a Basilica when 
converted into a church, required little or no change to 
accommodate it to this twofold division. For the apse 
at the end of the hall, which in its civic use had been the 
“tribunal” for administering justice, was made the 
sanctuary for the “ altar,” and the hall itself supplied an 
ample space for the lay portion of the congregation to 
assemble. 

In the mean while another want was beginning to be 
felt: and it was subsequently thought right that the 
catechumens should have a separate part of the church 
area assigned to them, divided off from the baptized 
worshippers. From the end of the second century the 
catechumens had been a distinct and numerous class, 
kept a long time under instruction and preparatory 
discipline before they were baptized, and although they 
were allowed to be in church during the reading of the 
Scriptures and the sermon, they were dismissed before 
the prayers began. In all probability therefore, they sat 
by themselves; but there does not appear to have been 
a place actually separated for them from the congrega- 
tion of the “Faithful,” until the fifth or sixth century. 
When this was done churches were built with a triple 
division, and Basilicas sometimes then had a portion for 
the catechumens marked off at the lower part of the 
hall.’ 


1 The Form and Divisions of pressly for Christian worship in the 
Churches. third century and onwards, they 
When churches were built ex- were usually of an oblong shape 


200 


PUBLIC? WORST. 


With these changes in the places of worship, and in 


the nature of the ministrations performed in them, the 


custom of consecrating churches after the manner of 


and turned towards the east, ac- 
cording to the direction, ὁ 070s 
ἐπιμήκης ἔστω κατ᾽ ἀνατο- 
Ads rerpaupévos.—‘ Constitut. 


Apost.’ ii. 4. 
Other forms, however, were 
sometimes observed. Thus, of 


three noted churches built by 
Constantine, one at Golgotha was 
round, another at Antioch octagon, 
and the third at Constantinople in 
the form of a cross. [See Bing- 
ham, or Guericke, ‘Manual of 
Church Antiquities.’] 

Christians in Tertullian’s time 
had adopted the custom of wor- 
shipping with their faces towards 
the east,—the east (ἀνατολῇ) be- 
ing taken to be an emblem of Christ 
[Luke i. 78], and consequently 
churches were usually so placed ; 
the Communion Table—then called 
the ‘‘altar’’—being at the eastern 
end. But this rule was not always 
observed. The church at Antioch 
mentioned by Socrates (‘H. E.’ v. 
22), had the ‘“‘altar”’ at the west 
end. Ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τῆς Supias 
ἡ ἐγοιλησία ἀντίστροφον ἔχει 
τὴν θέασιγν, yap πρὸς 
ἀνατολὰς τὸ θυσιαόστήριον 
᾿ἀλλὰ πρὸς δύσιν ὁρᾷ. 

With respect to the divisions of 
churches into different parts, Guer- 
icke in his ‘ Manual of Church An- 
tiquities,’ observes that, .‘‘ The 
whole of the rectangular space of 


5) 
OU 


the splendid public buildings (basi- 
lice), which were transferred to 
ecclesiastical purposes, was usually 
divided into three portions with 
either a single, or with three, and 
sometimes even five naves. And 
this architectural arrangement of 
the basilicze determined beforehand 
the character of the Christian 
churches.”’ But this assertion must 
not be taken without some qualifi- 
cation. The plan of building 
churches with a curved apse at the 
east end, and with a central division 
and two, or occasionally four, side 
aisles, separated from it by columns, 
was no doubt borrowed from the 
basilice ; but the triple division for 
the ‘‘altar,”’ the faithful, and the 
catechumens, was not suggested by 
these civic halls, but by ideas and 
consequent arrangements which 
arose within the churchitself. The 
basilica, too, was distinctly divided 
not into three, but two parts—the 
tribunal, and the body of the hall ; 
as described by Vitruvius, to whom 
Guericke himself refers, and as ap- 
pears still in some very ancient 
Italian churches, particularly at 
Ravenna, retaining the form of the 
Roman basilica, and dating possibly 
from the fourth or fifth century. 
The following is Vitruvius’s de- 
scription ‘‘of the basilica built in 
the Julian colony of Fano :’— 
‘‘The middle vault between the 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


201 


the Jewish Temple easily followed, the buildings them- 
selves were then deemed holy, and the sanctuary or 


clumns, is 120 feet long and 60 
feet wide. The portico around it 
is 20 feet wide. The tribunal is in 
the shape of a segment of a circle, 
the front dimension of which is 46 
feet, that of its depth 15 feet; and 
is so contrived that the merchants 
who are in the basilica may not in- 
terfere with those who have busi- 
ness before the magistrates.’”’— 
Vitruvius, v. 1. translated by J. 
Gwilt, p. 127. 

The three divisions when adopted 
in Churches were called—1. The 
ναάρθηξ, or ante-temple, where 
penitents and catechumens stood, 
and to which heathens were ad- 
mitted. 

2. The aos, or temple, where the 
‘‘ faithful,’’ or eommunicants, were 
placed, and which was also called 
aula laicorum. The word ναὸς 
was afterwards Latinized into navis, 
whence the English word ‘‘nave.”’ 

3. The βῆμα, or sanctuary, 
where the ‘‘altar’’ was placed. It 
was also called ἅγιον, ἱεράτειον, 
6vu6tacrypior; or in Latin, sanctua- 
rium, sacrarium, sancta sanctorum, 
the Holy of Holies. It was sepa- 
rated by rails or lattice-work— 
cancelli ; whence the modern name 
‘‘chancel.”” The entrance to this 
was closed by gates or curtains, 
‘*partly to hide the prospect of 
this part of the church from the 
catechumens and unbelievers, and 
partly to cover the sacrifice of the 
Eucharist in the time of consecra- 


tion.” 

Thus both the Jewish notion of a 
temple which none but priests 
might enter, and the heathen no- 
tion of sacred mysteries hidden 
from the uninitiated, were en- 
couraged in the Church. None of 
these things have the least coun- 
tenance in the Church system of 
the New Testament. 

Morinus having declared that the 
ancient churches had no vap§7é, 
or special place for catechumens 
and unbelievers, for above 500 
years, Bingham affirms that ‘‘in this 
heis evidently mistaken; for though 
the name, perhaps, is not very 
ancient, yet the thing itself is; for 
this was always a distinct and sepa- 
rate part of the church, as any one 
will easily imagine that considers 
the ancient use of it. For the 
Church, ever since she first divided 
her catechumens and penitents in- 
to distinct orders and classes, had 
also distinct places in the church 


for them.” —viii. 4, 2. But Bing- 


ham gives no proof at all of this 
confident assertion of his. For his 
references to the ‘Constitutiones 
Apostolic,’ to Basil, and others, 
only prove that catechumens were 
required to withdraw from the 
church after the reading of the 
Scripture lessons and the sermon ; 
from which it by no means neces- 
sarily follows that churches must 
have been always built with a dis- 
tinct «nd separate part for their use. 


202 


PUBLIC’ WORSHIP. 


chancel the most holy part of all; and men were taught 
to believe that their prayers were more efficacious in a 
consecrated building, and that the divine presence in 
an especial manner dwelt within its walls. 

There is not the slightest trace of any of these things 


1The consecration of churches 
with formal solemnities, which were 
supposed to impart a sacredness to 
the place and building, does not 
appear until the fourth century. 
Before that time it was thought 
sufficient to ‘‘dedicate’”’ a church 
by the first act of using it for public 
prayer, as had been the case also 
with the Jewish synagogues. And 
thus the word dedico is used by 
Cyprian in the sense of doing a 
sacred thing for the first time, when 
he says of Aurelius whom he had 
ordained as a reader, ‘‘ Dominico 
legit interim nobis, id est auspicatus 
est precem, dum dedicat lectionem.”’ 
—Ep. 33 ad Clerum et Plebem. 
See the remarks of Selden and 
Dodwell on this subject, quoted by 
Vitringa.—‘ De Synag.’ i. 3, 2. 

But from the time of Constantine 
much more elaborate ceremonies 
were introduced. The sacerdotal 
notions, taken from the Jewish 
temple, were enhanced by an acces- 
sion of mystery and awfulness ; 
and, in particular, the place where 
the ‘‘altar’’ stood was regarded as 
‘‘most holy,’ and hidden from the 
vulgar sight. 

Then too incense, and lighted 
lamps in the day time, were used 
in the celebration of the Lord’s 


Supper, although the latter, as a 
pagan custom, had been forbidden 
by the Council of Elvira at the be- 
ginning of this century. Both, 
however, are sanctioned by the 
‘Canones Apostolici,’ which direct 
μὴ ἐξὸν ἔστω προδαγ εσθαΐί τι 
ἕτερον εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον, ἢ 
ἔλαιον εἰς τὴν λυχνίαν, nai 
θυμίαμα τῷ καίρῳ τῆς ἁγίας 
apoop~opas.—Canon 3. 

Crosses, sometimes of silver, were 
get up on the ‘‘altar,” and flowers 
were placed on it ; while, as Jerome 
approvingly observes in his pane- 
gyric on Nepotian, flowers, leaves, 
and vine-branches ornamented 
other parts of the church. ‘‘Basi- 
licas ecclesize et martyrdum concili- 
abula diversis floribus, et arborum 
comis, vitiumque pampinis adum- 
bravit.”’ 

Pictures were first introduced in- 
to churches at the end of the fourth 
century by Paulinus at Nola, in 
order to keep the people from dis- 
turbances and excess at the Church 
festivals! Jmages and statues came 
in later ; but a superstitious rever- 
ence for the supposed relics of 
saints and martyrs, and the ascrip- 
tion of miraculous powers to them, 
were encouraged by Paulinus him- 
self. 


᾿ 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 203 


in the New Testament, or for a hundred years after the 
Apostles’ time ; and even in the fourth and following 
centuries thoughtiul men could see that churches of 
architectural beauty, glittering with ornamentation, and 
invested with an artificial sacredness, lacked the true 
honour and simple dignity of the apostolic age, when 
the grace and spirituality of the congregation, and not 
the splendour of the building or the gorgeousness of 
priestly vestments, adorned the devotions of the Church. 
For us, who can now look back upon the history of the 
past, to choose for our imitation the florid display of 
the later time rather than the simplicity of the /irst, is 
surely a grave mistake, and one which ought not to be 
found in a Cliurch in which the New Testament has been 
for more than 300 years in the hands of the people, and 
its supreme authority openly avowed.’ 


χαρίόμαδσι πνευματιποῖς, ἔβρυε 
δὲ πολιτείᾳ λαμπρᾷ éundnoia- 


1 Isidore of Pelusium, at the end 
of the fourth century, contrasting 


the times of the Apostles with his 
own, remarks, that then the congre- 
gation was adorned with spiritual 
gifts, and distinguished by an ad- 
mirable social order, while the place 
in which they worshipped was 
unadorned ; but in his own time 
the churches were decorated with 
an excess of ornamentation, and 
glittering with splendour, while 
the congregation, destitute of 
spiritual graces, was, to say the 
least, an object of reproach and 
ridicule. Ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ᾿Αποστό- 
λων, ὅτε ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐκόμα μὲν 


στήρια οὐ" ἦν. ἐπὶ δὲ ἡμῶν τὰ 
ἐγπιλησιαότήρια πλέον τοῦ 
δέοντος HEXOOUNTAL, ἡ δὲ éxX- 
κλησία--αλλ᾽ οὐδὲν βούλομαι 
δυδσχερὲς εἰπεῖν---κωμωδεῖται. 
ἜἘγω γοῦν, εἴ γε atpecis μοι 
προύκειτο, εἱλόμην ἂν ἐν τοῖς 
καίροις ἐκείνοις VE γεγενῆσθαι, 
ἐν οἷς ἐκκλησιαστήρια μὲν 
οὕτω πεποσμημένα οὐ ἣν, éx- 
κλησία δὲ θείοις καὶ οὐρανίοις 
χαρίόμασιν ἐστεμμένη, ἢ ev 
τούτοις, ἐν οἷς τὰ μὲν EXHANCIA- 
ὅτήρια παντοίοις HEXAAAWNIG- 
ται μαρμάροις, ἡ δὲ ἐτσιλησία 


204 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


II. Public Worship. 


From the places in which the early Curistians met for 
their united devotions we are led next to enquire into 
the form and method of the devotions themselves ; and 
this enquiry is at once assisted by a scriptural account 
of the very earliest arrangement of Christian worship, 
commencing with the formation of the first Christian 
community. In Acts ii. 42, we are presented with an 
enumeration of the different parts which made up the 
religious services, instituted by the Apostles for the in- 
struction and edification of the infant Church. 

As the words indeed stand in our English Version, the 
information which they give is not very precise or 
clear, when we read of the new converts in this verse, 
that “they continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine 
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” 
But in the original it is evident that four distinct par- 
ticulars are enumerated in such a manner as to show 
that, at the time when the account was written, they 
were well-known and customary portions of an esta- 
blished mode of procedure in the religious assemblies of 
the Church. To give the real meaning of the verse it 
may be translated, “ They were constantly attending the 
Apostles’ teaching, and the collection, or contribution 
τῶν πνευματικῶν χαριόμάτων epigrammatic form, τότε ai ofuiar 
ἐκείνων ἐρήμη καὶ γυμνὴ καθέ- éundnoiar ἦσαν, νῦν δὲ ἡ éx- 
Ornxev.—Lib. ii. Ep. 246. uAnoia οἰκία yéyovev.— Hom. 


Chrysostom also very briefly ex- 92 in Matth.’ 
presses the same thoughts in an 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


205 


(for the poor), and the breaking of the bread, and the 
prayers (of the congregation).” * 


Τὺ is necessary in this verse to 
mark the presence of the Article, 
repeated with each word, τῇ 
διδαχῇ τῶν ᾿Δποότόλων, nai 
τῇ ποινωγνίᾳ, καὶ τῇ Ἠλάδει τοῦ 
ἄρτου, καὶ ταῖς προδευχαΐς, 
which shows that every particular 
enumerated is a distinct and sepa- 
rate thing, and, consequently, that 
τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ANOGTOAWY, Hat 
τῇ κοινωνίᾳ cannot be ‘the 
Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship ;” 
and which shows besides that all 
these particulars were known and 
familiar objects, admitting of this 
precise and definite allusion. 

The only possible doubt as to the 
meaning of the verse is connected 
with the word xo1vwvia, which 
instead of ‘‘a contribution” might 
signify ‘‘a common participation” 
—that is, in this place, a partaking 
together of the “Ayamn, or Love 
Feast, which accompanied the cele- 
bration of the Lord’s Supper in the 
earliest times. This is the opinion 
of Neander, in his ‘ History of the 
Planting and Training of the Chris- 
tian Church,’ where he says that 
κοινωνία here ‘‘means the daily 
meal of which believers partook as 
members of one family,” and ‘‘in 
which they commemorated the last 
supper of the disciples with Christ, 
and their brotherly union with one 
another. At the close of the meal 
the president distributed bread and 
wine to the persons present, as a 
memorial of Christ’s similar distri- 


bution to the disciples. Thus 
every meal was consecrated to the 
Lord, and at the same time was a 
meal of brotherly love. Hence, 
the designations afterwards chosen 
were δεῖπνον Κυρίου, and 
ay anny.’ —B. i. 2. 

Neander adds in a note, ‘‘ Mo- 
sheim thinks, since everything else 
is mentioned that is found in later 
meetings of the Church, that the 
κοινωνία refers to the collections 
made on these occasions.”” And, 
besides Mosheim’s reason, it may 
be noticed that xozv@via is not 
elsewhere met with in the New 
Testament in the connection which 
Neander gives, nor in the sense of 
participation, without the object 
participated in being expressed ; 
whereas it is several times used to 
signify a collection, or contribution. 

Koivewvia oceurs nineteen times 
in the New Testament in the follow- 
ing senses: 

I. Fellowship, or communion. 

1. With a person, so as to share 
with him in his advantages, or 
work, &c. If the person is ex- 
pressed, zeta, with a Gen., is put 
before it. 

Δεξιὲὸς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ 
BapvaBa ποινωνέας, Gal. iii. 9, 
‘‘they gave to me and Barnabas the 
right hands of fellowship,”’ 2. 6. ac- 
knowledged us as having a share 
with them in their work. 

Ἵνα καὶ ὑμεὶς ποινωνίαν, 
ἔχητε εθ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ HOLY CVI 


206 


“The Apostles’ teaching” 


ΟΞ WORSHIP. 


was the address or sermon - 


delivered by them,—and afterwards by other ministers, 


δὲ ἡμετέρα μετὰ tov Πατρὸς, 
καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 
1 John i. 3, ἃ share with the 
Father and the Son in their bless- 
ings, &e. 

So with ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι 
_ κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 
1 John, i. 6; and κοινωνίαν 
ἔχομεν wer AAAHAwY, 1Johni.7. 

2. Fellowship, or communion, in 
a thing (or Person) so as to share 
with others in the advantages, &c., 
which comes from it (or him). 

Ai ov ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν 
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 1 Cor. i. 9, into 
a participation in His Son ; ὁ. e. to 
be joint partakers in His blessings. 

Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ 
εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὲ ποινωνία 
τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Xpi6rov ἐστι; 
τὸν ἄρτον ὃν Ἀλῶμεν, ovyxi 
κοινωνία TOU δώματος τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ ἔστιν ; 1 Cor. x. 16, ἃ 
participation in the blood—and 
the body. 

Ἡ ποινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου 
Πνεύματος, 2 Cor. xiii. 18, the 
participation in the Holy Spirit. 

Ei't1s κοινωνία Πνεύματος, 
Phil. ii. 1, any participation in the 
Spirit. 

So also with ris ἡ κοινωνία 
τοὺ μυστηρίου, Eph. iii. 9; and 
τὴν κοινωνίαν TOV παθημάτων 
αὐτοῦ, Phil. iii. 10. 

II. Communication, or imparting 
a share of what we have to others. 
Hence— 

1. A collection, or contribution. 


Ἦσαν προόδκαρτεροῦντες τῇ 
διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῇ 
κοινωνίᾳ, Acts ii. 42, as given 
above. 

Κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι 
εἰς τοὺς πτωώχους, Rom. xv. 26, 
to make a certain collection for the 
poor. 

Τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς SLAKOVIAV 
τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους, 2 Cor. Viii. 
4, the contribution of their service 
to the saints. 

Kai ἁπλότητι τῆς ποινωνίας 
εἰς αὐτοὺς, 2 Cor. ix. 13, the 
liberality of their contribution for 
them. . 

Ἐπὶ τῇ nowvwvia ὑμῶν εἰς TO 
εὐαγγέλιον, Phil. i. 5, for your 
contribution to the Gospel ; i. 6. 
the supplies which they had sent 
to St. Paul for the Gospel’s sake. 

2. A communication, or distribu- 
tion. 

Ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως 
Gov ἐνεργὴς γένηται, Philem. 6, 
that the communication of thy faith 
[to others] may prove effectual. 

Τῆς δὲ εὐποιίας nai ποινω- 
vias μὴ ἐπιλανθαάνεσθε, Heb. 
xiii. 16, ““ἴο do good, and to distri- 
bute, forget not.’ 

The verb xo1v ὧν ἕω occurs eight 
times in the New Testament, and 
signifies— 

1. To have a share with others ; 
to be partakers with others, or in 
the things of others; as in Rom. 
xv. 27; 1 Tim. v. 22; Heb. ii. 14; 
1 Pet. iv. 13 ; 2 John 11. [2. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 207 


—to the assembled believers, accompanied no doubt with 
a reading of portions of the Jewish Scriptures, from 
which, as it evidently appears in the history of the 
Apostles’ ministrations, so large a portion of their 
Christian preaching was more or less directly drawn. 

“The collection or contribution” included probably 
those large and liberal gifts which are said to have been 
“laid at the Apostles’ feet;”’ as well as the smaller 
donations of less wealthy Christians who were taught to 
give according to their means. And these together pro- 
duced the fund which supplied the wants of the poorer 
brethren, and other ecclesiastical expenses, and which, 
being thus directly consecrated to the service of Christ, 
was invested with a religious or sacred character, so ac- 
cordant with the devotional spirit of the apostolic Church. 

“The breaking of the bread” was the celebration of 
the Lord’s Supper, of which more will be said hereafter. 

“The prayers” were the public supplications of the 
assembled people. 

Taking then this original outline as a starting-point, 
we may trace allusions to one or another of these com- 
ponent parts of the primitive worship, scattered here and 
there throughout the New Testament. Thus in Acts xx. 
7, we are informed that the Christians at Troas “ on the 
first day of the week came together to break bread,” and 
that St. Paul “preached to them.” In1 Cor. xi. and xiv. 
we have a fuller account of the religious meetings of the 


2. To give a share to others; to which we have; asin Rom. xiii. 3; 
make others partakers in the things Gal. vi. 6; Phil. iv. 15. 


208 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


Corinthian Christians, and of their prayers accompanied 
with singing,—their celebration of the Lord’s Supper, 
and their prophesying, 1.6. inculcating divine truths by 
the exposition of Scripture lessons, in what would now 
be termed Lectures or Sermons. In the Pastoral 
Epistles of St. Paul are found, as might be expected, 
several exhortations to Timothy and Titus to see that 
the religious services in their churches were duly per- 
formed. Thus he directs “that supplications, prayers, 
intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men.” 
(1 Tim. ii. 1.) He desires Timothy “to attend to the 
reading” of the Scriptures in the congregations, and “ to 
the exhortation and the instruction” addressed to them? 
And since the teaching and admonitions of the ministers 
in any church must have a great influence on the faith 
and conduct of their congregations, he requires that a 
bishop, 7.e. a presbyter having the oversight of a Church, 
should, among other qualifications, be “apt to teach,” 
and able both to exhort Christian people by his sound 
instruction, and also to convince or refute opposers of 
the faith (Tit. i. 9). And he urges Timothy himself with 
all earnestness “to preach the word,” “ rightly to divide 
the word of truth,” and “to take heed to himself and to 
his teaching.” 

The singing also of psalms and hymns, taken from the 


1JIn Tim. iv. 13, πρόσεχε ry being accompanied with the other 
ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παραπλήσει, rH words, must necessarily mean the 
διδασκαλίᾳ, ‘‘the reading” public reading in the church. 
having the Article prefixed, and 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 209 


Old Testament, or composed for Christian use, not only 
prevailed in Christian families, but was introduced in the 
very earliest times into the public services of the Church. 
It is mentioned by St. Paul in his directions to the 
Corinthians (1 Cor. xiv.); and it 15 with good reason 
believed that the words in Eph. v. 14, are a quotation 
from a Christian hymn." 

This apostolic mode of public worship was still con- 
tinued in almost its original simplicity in the middle of 
the second century, as may be seen in the description 
of the Sunday services given by Justin Martyr, who 
enumerates the reading of lessons from the Gospels, or 
the prophetical Scriptures, followed by a sermon or ad- 
dress by the officiating minister,—after which the con- 
sregation stood up for their common prayers,—and the 
service concluded with the celebration of the Lord’s 
Supper, which was immediately preceded by appropriate 
prayers and thanksgivings uttered by the minister, and 
responded to by the people with the word Amen; ac- 
companied also with the voluntary contributions of the 


communicants.” 


1 The words in Eph. v. 14, form 
three lines of a hymn: 

"Ey e1pat 6 καθεύδων, 

καὶ ἀνάστα EX τῶν VEUPWY, 

και ἐπιφαύσει Gor ὁ Κριότός. 
The quotation is introduced in a 
peculiar manner by 620 λέγ ει, not 
λέγει ἡ γραφὴ, or λέγεται; or 
γέγραπται, but λέγει ‘one 
says’ ’’—in the Church service. 

2The following is Justin’s ac- 


count of the Sunday service in his 
time: ΤῸ tov ἡλίου λεγομένῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ πάντων HATA TWoders ἢ 
ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 
δυνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ 
ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποό- 
τόλων ἢ τὰ δυγγράμματα τῶν 
προφητῶν ἀναγινώσπεται 
μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ Eira, παυόδα- 
μένου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος, ὃ 
προεότως δι λόγου τήν 


as 


210 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


Notices of a similar kind are found in Tertullian,! and. 
indeed throughout the third and fourth centuries and 
onwards ; but little alteration is to be seen in the general 
form and outline of the public worship, except that the 
strongly marked distinction between believers and cate- 
chumens, and the tendency to deal with the Christian 
sacraments after the manner of the secret pagan myste- 
ries led, in the third century, to a formal division of the 
Church services into two portions—subsequently called 
Missa Catechumenorum and Missa Fidelium. At first the 
former of these two divisions, to which all persons, 
whether Christians or not, were admissible, probably 
included the singing, Scripture lessons, and sermon ; 
and the latter, at which Christians only were present, 
consisted of the common prayers of the people with the 


νουθεσίαν καὶ προκληόσιν τῆς 


συλλεγόμενον παρὰ τῷ προεδ- 
τῶν καλῶν τουτῶν μιμήδεως 


τῶτι ἀποτίθεται.---“ Apol.’ i.§ 87. 


ποιεῖται. Ἔπειτα ἀνιόστάμεθα 
HOW πάντες καὶ εὐχὰς 
πέμπομεν" καὶ ὡς προέφημεν;, 
παυόδαμενων ἡμῶν τῆς εὐχῆς, 
ἄρτος προόδφέρεται UAL OLVOS 
HAL ὕδωρ, καὶ ὁ προεστῶς 
EVXAS ὁμοίως HAL εὐχαριότίασ, 
66n δύναμις αὐτῷ, ἀναπέμπει, 
HAL O λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων 
τὸ ᾿Δμήν. καὶ ἡ διάδοσις Hai ἡ 
μετάληψις ἀπὸ τῶν εὐχαριότη- 
θεντῶν ἑκμαστῳω γίνεται, καὶ 
τοῖς οὐ παροῦσι διὰ τῶν διαπό- 
vov πέμπεται. Οἱ εὐποροῦντες 
δὲ καὶ βουλόμεγον κατα 
προαίρεσιν ξαόστος THY ἑαυτοῖ 
ὃ βούλεται δίδωσι, καὶ τὸ 


Justin does not mention singing 
in this description ; but it is -evi- 
dent that hymns were sung in the 
religious services of his time, from 
a remark which he makes in an 
earlier part of his ‘Apology.’ 
πομπὰς UAL ὕμνους πέμπομεν. 
—§ 16. 

1 Tertullian, meaning apparently 
to enumerate with the greatest 
brevity the different parts of the 
Church service, says, ‘‘Jam vero 
prout Scripture leguntur, aut 
psalmi canuntur, aut allocutiones 
proferuntur, aut petitiones dele- 
gantur.’”’—‘De Anima,’ ὃ 9, ed. 
1664, 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


211 


usual devotions of the Eucharistic service ; but in the 


fourth century a somewhat more complex arrangement 


was thought to be desirable. 


1As the Sunday morning ser- 
vice, as described by Justin Martyr, 
contained no other prayers but 
those which Christians offered to- 
gether (xo1vai evyaz), and the 
prayers of the officiating minister 
immediately before the celebration 
of the Lord’s Supper, the parts of 
the service which were suitable for 
non-Christians would be the sing- 
ing, the Scripture lessons, and the 
sermon ; and, consequently, a divi- 
sion would naturally be made 
there. In the fourth century, 
however, when catechumens were 
sufficiently numerous to form a 
distinct class, under a long course 
of instruction ;—when Christians, 
who had committed grave offences, 
or had submitted to heathen com- 
pliances in times of persecution, 
had to be placed under a peniten- 
tial discipline ;—and when Chris- 
tian worship attracted more atten- 
tion in the pagan part of the popula- 
tion ;—certain prayers were added 
to the ‘Missa Catechumenorum ; 
and, at the same time, the latter 
portion of the service, or ‘ Missa 
Fidelium,’ was also enlarged. 

The accounts, however, which 
are given of these enlarged services 
do not exactly agree in all their 
details ; and, probably, some differ- 
ence was observable in this respect 
in different Churches. 

Thus, with respect to the ‘ Missa 
Catechumenorum,’ according to the 


directions of the Council of Laodi- 
cea (A. D. 360), the sermon was 
followed by a prayer for the cate- 
chumens, who then retired ; after 
which came a prayer for the peni- 
tents, who also then withdrew from 
the church, the heathen part of the 
congregation, if any, having appar- 
ently departed at the end of the 
sermon. Mera τας ὁμιλίας τῶν 
ἐπισκόπων, καὶ τῶν κατηχου- 
μένων εὐχὴν ἐπιτελεῖοθαι--- 
καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἐξελθεῖν τοὺς 
ματηχουμένους τῶν ἐν μετα- 
γοίᾳ τὴν εὐχὴν γίγνεσθαι, καὶ 
τούτων προδελθόντων ὑπὸ 
χεῖρα, καὶ ὑποχωρηδαντῶν, 
οὕτως τῶν πιστῶν TAS εὐχὰς 
γίψνεσθαι.--- Cone. Laodic. Can.’ 
19; Labbé Cone.’ vol. 11. p. 567. 

But in the ‘Canonica’ of Basil 
(A. D. 370), the prayer for the peni- 
tents seems to have been the only 
one which followed the sermon, 
before the ‘Missa Fidelium’ be- 
gan. For he there directs that a 
certain penitent should at first be 
shut out of the Church altogether : 
μετὰ δὲ τὰ τεέσόαρα ἔτη ets 
τοὺς ἀπηροωμέγους δεχθήδεται, 
UAL ἐν πέντε ἔτεσι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν 
ἐξελεύσεται,--ἐδν ἑπτὰ ἔτεσι 
μετὰ τῶν ἐν ὑποπτώσδει προ- 
Gevyomevos ἐξελευόδεταῖι,--ἐν 
TEGOUPCL GUVOTHGETAL μόνον 
τοῖς m16ro7iS.—Epist. 217; Can. 
56 ; also Can. 75. 

And then the directions given in 


212 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


And thus the general outline of the Christian worship, 
instituted by the Apostles, “was maintained down to 
the Reformation, notwithstanding some variety of details, 


and the continual addition of ceremonies, intended to 


present its rites in an outward form, and with a sym- 
bolical pomp, calculated to strike and gratify the senses.” 
And now, delivered from such excessive and superstitious 
accumulations, with which they had been overlaid, the 
four particulars mentioned in the original apostolic 


the ‘Constitutiones Apostolice’ 
speak of no less than four distinct 
courses of prayer after the end of 
the sermon, and the departure of 
the unbelievers, namely, prayers 
(1) for the catechumens ; (2) for 
the energumens, 7: 6. those who 
were possessed with evil spirits, 
οἱ ἐνεργούμενοι ὑπὸ πνευμάα- 
τῶν ἀκαθάρτων ; (8) for those 
who were ready for baptism ; (4) for 
the penitents ; all these classes of 
persons leaving the church when 
their respective prayers were con- 
cluded—See ‘Constit. Apost.’ viii. 
5—9. 

In the ‘ Missa Fidelium,’ between 
the prayers of the people, and the 
Kucharistic prayers of the officiat- 
ing minister, mentioned by Justin, 
there are found in the fourth cen- 
tury two other prayers inserted. 
The former of these was a “" Bid- 
ding Prayer,” εὐχὴ διὰ προόφω- 
VNGE@S, pronounced by a deacon, 
and responded to by the people 
with some short ejaculations ; and 
the latter was a prayer by the 
bishop, at the end of which they 


said, Amen. All these three pray- 
ers are mentioned in the directions 
of the Council of Laodicea, above 
referred to; and the two of later 
introduction are described in the 
‘ Apostolic Constitutions,’ vili.9, 10, 

The first and most ancient of 
these prayers wasa ‘‘silent prayer,”’ 
each member of the congregation 
praying mentally by and with him- 
self. It is expressly so named by 
the Council of Laodicea, εὐχὴ dra 
σιωπῆς. AndI cannot but think 
that it was a silent prayer in Justin’s 
time, and, possibly, from a still 
earlier date. Thus, in Justin’s nar- 
rative, the people said Amen only 
after the prayers and thanksgivings 
uttered by the minister ; but of the 
‘¢common prayers”” before this, he 
says, ‘‘ We all stand up together 
and send forth prayers,” a@v16Ta- 
μεθα κοινῇ πάντες HAL EVYAS 
πεμπομὲν Σ and ‘*When we 
have ceased from our prayer,” 
παυδαμένων ἡκωῶν τῆς EVANS, 
with no Amen, and no minister 
uttering the prayers before them ; 
while there is no intimation that 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 2.3 


worship are still exhibited in our own congregations, 
when our full morning service is performed, and when 
besides the common prayers of the assembled wor- 
shippers, “the breaking of bread” is continued in the 
Lord’s Supper,—‘“ the collection” is preserved in the 
offertory,—and “the Apostles’ doctrine” is, or ought to 
be, heard in the sermon. 

As it does not come within the scope of these lectures 
to dwell upon all the particulars which might be noticed 
in a treatise on Christian Antiquities, it will be sufficient 
to mention very briefly that the usual postures of prayer 
in the earliest Churches were in all probability “standing” 
and “kneeling.” The latter alone is expressly named 
in the New Testament in connection with Christian 
worship; but standing was a posture used in prayer by 
the Jews; and Christians, even as early as Justin’s time, 


stood up to pray in their Sunday congregations,—a 


custom afterwards very scrupulously observed.’ 


they were all uttering one common 
form of words. This therefore 
seems to have been “silent 
prayer.” 

Tertullian, too, can hardly mean 
anything but silent prayer, when 
he says in allusion to the public 
worship of Christians, ‘‘sine moni- 
tore quia de pectore oramus” 
(*‘Apol.’ ὃ 30), for a number of 
persons could not pray together 
aloud in this manner. 

Indeed, the only prayers which 
the people seem to have uttered 
aloud were the Lord’s Prayer, and 
certain short ejaculations in reply 


to words of the officiating minister. 


It was in this ‘‘silent prayer” 
that the people stood up; in the 
others they knelt down. 

1 Justin, in his account of the 
Christian worship on Sundays, 
says, that they stood up to pray,* 
ἀνιότάμεθα κοινῇ MAVTES, καὶ 
εὐχὰς πέμπομεν.---“ἈΡΟ],᾿ i. 87. 
Trenzus, half a century later, men- 
tions the same practice, and says 
that it was done in token of the 
resurrection, and began from the 
times of the Apostles, ro δὲ ἐν 
Kupiany μὴ udivery γόνυ 
συμβολόν ἐότι τῆς ἀναότα- 


214 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


The practice of stretching out or lifting up the hands 
in praying, also of Jewish origin, is alluded to by St. Paul 
in 1 Tim. ii. 8, “I will therefore that men pray every- 
where lifting up holy hands,” but doubtless without the 
conceit of doing so in the form of a cross, as was the 
case in the third century. 

There is in the New Testament no trace of Christian 
worshippers turning to the east in their prayers, or other 
parts of their service; though this practice appears at 
the beginning of the third century, and was probably 


begun much earlier... Neither is the use of incense or of 
lamps or candles, as sacred or symbolical accompaniments 


in any Christian ceremony, to be found in the apostolic 
age; nor does it appear that Christian ministers then 


wore any peculiar dress or official vestments in any of 


ὅὄεως..... ἐμ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν 
χρόνων τοιαυτῇ συνήθεια 
ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν.---. Ἐταρτα. de 
Pasch.’ And in Tertullian’s time it 
was considered quite an unlawful 
thing to kneel at prayers on the 
Lord’s Day, ‘‘ Die Dominico jeju- 
nium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis 
adorare. Hadem immunitate a dio 
Pasche in Pentecosten usque 
gaudemus.’’—‘ De Cor. Mil.’ 3. 

° In the fourth century, however, 
it seems to have been the custom 
for the people to stand up at one 
portion of the prayers, while in 
the others they knelt down. See 
Bingham, xv. 1, and ‘Constit. 
Apost.’ viii. 9; see also note (?) 
p. 211. 

1The practice of turning to the 


east in the prayers of the church is 
first mentioned by Tertullian, who 
says, that Christians were on this 
account accused of worshipping the 
sun, ‘‘quod innotuerit nos ad Ori- 
entis regionem precari.”’—(‘ Apol.’ 
16.) The words of Zechariah, iii. 
8, ‘‘Behold I will bring forth my 


_ Servant, the Branch,” being trans- 


lated in the Septuagint, δου ἐγὼ 
ἄγω tov δοῦλόν μου, “Avaro- 
Any, Christians, at a very early 
period, looked upon the east as an 
emblem of Christ ; thus Justin M. 
says, Χριότὸς ἀνατολὴ 61a 
Ζαχαρίου xéxAnrar.— Dial. ὁ. 
Tryph.’ ὃ 126. And Tertullian, 
‘‘Orientem Christi figuram.”— 
‘Adv. Valentin.’ p. 284. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 215 


their ministrations. All these came in at a later period 
and were derived from Jewish or heathen practices, as 
the Church, having lost the freshness and fulness of 
apostolic truth, learned from such objectionable sources 
to affect a more elaborate ceremonial, and to court an 
exhibition of sesthetic display, quite foreign to the devout 
simplicity of the apostolic age. 

There is, however, one part. of this subject which de- 
mands more than a passing notice, from its connection 
with Church controversies of the past, and from the 
interest which it even now in some respects assumes in 
its bearing npon wants and difficulties in our own 
Church and time. 

The controversies in the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries between the advocates of a fixed liturgy on 
the one hand, and of extemporaneous or at least unpre- 
scribed prayers in public worship on the other, neces- 
sarily gave importance to the question as to what was 
the rule or practice of the apostolic age in this matter; 
and what authority or deference the ancient liturgies, 
bearing apostolic or other venerated names, are justly 
entitled to receive. 

The opponents in those times, too much influenced on 
both sides by personal and party feelings, appear to have 
satisfied themselves that the practice which they re- 
spectively preferred was the only lawful one; the other, 
unjustifiable,—not to say heretical. And even now par- 
ticular views of Christian doctrine which men desire to 
advocate, or their individual preferences in matters 


216 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


ecclesiastical, seem to bias their minds unduly in the 
investigation of such questions. 

But for those who acknowledge the sufficiency and 
supremacy of Scripture, and the independent authority 
of each particular Church in subordination to the written 
word, and who duly appreciate the force of the omis- 
sions in the New Testament, there can surely be no 
doubt that inasmuch as no forms of prayer of apostolic 
authority are given in the sacred record, nor any com- 
mand from the Apostles as to the use or non-use of such 
forms, this is an open question to be decided by every 
Church for itself; each Church having a full right to act 
according to its discretion and deliberate judgment ; but 
no right at all to condemn or disparage the opposite 
practice, which another Christian community may prefer. 
Nor in the decision of such questions can any Church 
with propriety or safety disregard the consideration of 
times, circumstances, and men’s manners ; the feelings 
and requirements of any given age. 

But this general conclusion does not make it less 
interesting or instructive to consider the question of 
liturgical formularies in the ancient Church somewhat 
more widely, even though we do nothing more than 
take a brief notice of the most important of those 
particulars which the study of this subject presents 
to view. 

Setting out then from the general position just men- 
tioned, that there is no authority in the New Testament 
elther for or against set forms of prayer; let us first 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 217 


enquire what was, in fact, the practice of the earliest 
Churches. ° 

Since forms of prayer were in use in the Jewish Syna- 
gogues, and in some heathen religious services a scru- 
pulous adherence to the words of a sacred formula was 
considered essential ; the Churches, whether of Jewish 
or of Gentile Christians, could not have been unprepared 
for, or naturally averse to, prescribed and settled formu- 
laries of devotion for their own use. But did they, in 
fact, employ them ? 

There is no need to prove, nor for this question is 
there any advantage in proving, that the apostolic 
Churches used devotional forms, so far as to sing Old — 
Testament Psalms and precomposed hymns; and that 
the Lord’s prayer, as a well-known and honoured pre- 
scription of the Saviour, found a place in their religious 
services. Such might well be the case, even in Churches 
which allowed the fullest liberty to themselves and their 
officiating ministers in conducting their public devotions. 

The only questions to be answered are such as these: 
Were the public prayers in the apostolic Churches set 
forms known beforehand, and repeated on every occa- 
sion, like our own? 

When such forms first appeared, did they spring up 
gradually with a spontaneous growth, or were they at 
some given time imposed by authority, so as to super- 
sede all extemporaneous or discretionary prayers? 

When formal liturgies had been adopted, were they 
regarded as fixed and settled for future generations as 


218 PUBLIC: “WORSHTP. 


well as for the one then present, so that to alter them 
would be thought a dangerous undertaking almost in- 
volving an ecclesiastical revolution ? or was revision and 
alteration felt to be a natural, easy, necessary thing, 
requiring attention from time to time, and effected with- 
out danger or alarm? 

Now, I think it is perfectly certain that in the earliest 
period of the apostolic age, a fixed and prescribed 
liturgy could not have been used, especially in the Gen- 
tile Churches, and during the time when the “ Ministry 
of Gifts” prevailed. The remarks which St. Paul makes 
about the public worship of the Corinthian Christians, 
where “every one had a psalm, had a doctrine, had a 
tongue, had a revelation,” and did not even observe due 
order and propriety in uttering them, and where the 
Apostle found it necessary to bid them not to pray or 
give thanks in a language which the congregation could 
not understand or respond to, are quite incompatible 
with the use of devotional formularies laid down before- 
hand, and known to all the worshippers. And when it 
is further noticed that St. Paul, though desiring to cor- 
rect disorders, does not at all condemn or disapprove of 
this mode of worship, provided that all things were 
“done decently and in order ;” and that he neither here, 
nor elsewhere,—nor any other of the Apostles, as far as 
we are informed,—recommended any forms of prayer to 
be used ; it is scarcely possible that there should be any 
reasonable doubt as to what the practice was at that 
period. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 219 


In the course of time, and as the “ Ministry of Orders” 
gradually superseded the “ Ministry of Gifts,” it might 
naturally be expected that without any marked or 
sudden change, and without any authoritative directions 
being given by the Apostles, some devotional utterances 
would by common use acquire certain definite forms of 
expression, conveniently employed on recurring occa- 
sions, and thus paving the way for more extensive 
changes in this direction, whenever the feeling or the 
circumstances of any Church should render them desir- 
able. That this, in fact, did take place we are justified 
in concluding; and allusions to such familiar formulas 
are found here and there in the later portions of the 
New Testament, such as, “ Hold fast the form of sound 
words” (2 Tim. 1. 13); and, “The answer of a good 
conscience towards God ” (1 Pet. 11. 21). 

Besides this in the administration of Baptism, and of 
the Lord’s Supper, the words of Jesus were probably 
used from the first without variation, whatever religious 
service might be added to them. And the prayers 
made “for kings and all in authority,” with others of a 


1The expression in 2 Tim. i. 13, iii, 21, συνειδηήόεως ay adys 


ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαιγοντῶν 
Aoy wy, cannot mean, onany sound 
principles of translation, ‘hold 
fast the form of sound words;’ 
but among many explanations 
which have been suggested, it may 
possibly mean, ‘‘ Have (or keep) an 
exemplar or formulary of sound 
words,”’ for the instruction and 
guidance of Christians. In 1 Pet. 


ἐπερωτήμα may mean, as Al- 
ford gives it, ‘‘the enquiry of a 
good conscience ;’ but it is not 
impossible that those interpreters 
may be right who suppose that it 
means ‘‘ the questions [with their 
answers] asked in Baptism,” 
which, perhaps, even in the apos- 
tolic age were expressed in a well- 
known form of words. 


220 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


similar kind, might naturally from their frequent use 
soon fall into a settled form of words; as would also be 
the case with short ejaculatory expressions and answers 
between the minister and the people, designed to keep 
alive a spirit of devotion; such as Swrsum corda, “ Lift 
up your hearts!” and Habemus ad Dominum, “ We lift 
them up unto the Lord.” But all this is very far from 
being a proof of the existence of precomposed liturgies ; 
though it may be deemed a certain advance towards, and 
preparation for, their introduction. And thus all the 
evidence directly deducible from the New Testament is 
against the use of such formularies in the apostolic age. 

Nor throughout the second century is any reliable 
testimony to be found indicative of any considerable 
alteration in this respect. On the contrary, the prayers 
of the Church, described by Justin Martyr, seem to have 


depended upon the ability and discretion’ of the officiat- 


1In his account of Christian wor- 
ship, Justin Martyr relates that the 
officiating minister evyas καὶ 
εὐχαριστίας, O6N δύναμις αὐτῷ, 
ἀναπέμπει, which words have 
very naturally been considered a 
proof that ‘‘liturgies, or set forms 
of prayer” were not then used, 
since the minister here is said to 
send up his prayers to the utmost 
of his ability. But this is contro- 
verted by those who are desirous 
to represent liturgies as of more 
ancient date. Thus Bingham 
affirms, ‘‘Some misconstrue this 
passage, and interpret the abilities 
of the minister officiating, as if 


they meant no more but his inven- 
tion, expression, or the like ;..... 
whereas, indeed, it signifies here 
quite a different thing, viz. that 
spiritual vigour, or intenseness and 
ardency of devotion with which 
the minister offered up the sacri- 
fices of the Church of God.”— 
Bing. vi. 3, 5. 

But the fact is that 667 δύναμις 
and other kindred expressions, 
such as uara δύναμιν, oS 
δύναται, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἦν ἐν 
δυνατῷ, are so common that 
there cannot be the least doubt 
as to their real meaning. They 
can signify nothing else but, 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


221 


ing minister, as much as they did in the preceding 


century. 


And none of the passages sometimes cited 


from other patristic authors of this period are at all at 


variance with Justin’s account.' 


‘cas well as one can,” or, “‘ to the 
best of one’s ability ;’ and the 
particular nature of the ability 
must depend upon the context with 
which the expression is joined in 
any given case. And as there is 
nothing else in Justin’s words to 
indicate a set form of prayer, 067 
δύναμις cannot, in fairness, be 
taken to mean anything else than 
that the minister prayed in the 
best manner that he could. 

The words 667 δύναμις occur 
in two other places in Justin’s 
‘Apology,’ § 16, and § 72; and 
Lord King, in his ‘Enquiry into 
the Constitution, &c. of the Primi- 
tive Church,’ has collected a large 
number of examples from Origen 
and others; remarking, ‘‘I have 
not found one place wherein this 
phrase, ὅσῃ δύναμις, doth not 
comprehend personal abilities.” 

Bingham, returning to the sub- 
ject in Book xiii. 5, 5, repeats his 
assertion that 667 δύναμις ‘re- 
lates to the ardency and intenseness 
of devotion,’’ and adds, ‘‘ And so it 
is plain the very same phrase is 
used by Nazianzen when he exhorts 
Christians to sing 667 δύναμις 
‘with all their might’ that triumph- 
ant hymn (upon the death of Julian) 
which the children of Israel sang 
when the Egyptians were drowned 
in the Red Sea.” The passage in 


Nazianzen is, φέρε, 667 δύναμις 
AY VICK MLEVOL καὶ δώματα UAL 
WUAAS, καὶ μίαν ἀναλαβόντες 
φωνὴν, ἑἕἑνὲ συναρμοσθέντες 
πνεύματι ἄδωμεν, &., Greg. 
Naz. ‘Orat.’ 11., where, how- 
ever, it is by no means plain 
that 667 δύναμις is so used as the 
learned Antiquarian asserts; on 
the contrary, it most naturally con- 
nects itself with ay v16a ev οἵ, and 
the immediately following words, 
and means here, just as in other 
places, nothing else than ‘‘to the 
best of our ability.” 

It may be further remarked that, 
in the ‘Constitutiones Apostolice,’ 
where frequent exhortations to 
‘‘ardency and intenseness of devo- 
tion”? are found, the words em- 
ployed for this purpose are not 667 
δύναμις, but such as éxreva@s, 
or GUYTOY@S. 

1The following are all the evi- 
dences about liturgical forms in 
the second century which the dili- 
gence of the learned has been able 
to collect. 

1. Pliny’s celebrated letter to 
Trajan (x. 97), in which he relates 
that Christians were accustomed to 
meet, and ‘‘carmen Christo quasi 
Deo dicere secum invicem.’’ The 
word ‘‘carmen,” it is true, may 
mean any ‘‘formulary ;” but ‘‘car- 
men dicere invicem,’’ much more 


222 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


It is not until the third century that any evidence, 
at all clear and conclusive, of the use of settled forms of 


naturally means ‘‘singing”’ than 
praying.” 

2. Ignatius is reported by Socra- 
tes, the ecclesiastical historian, to 
have introduced the practice of 
alternate singing into his Church at 
- Antioch. But, besides that this is 
second-hand testimony, it mentions 
only ‘‘ singing,” which is nothing 
to the purpose. 

3. Lucian, the pagan satirist, 
describing his coming: into a re- 
ligious assembly, says, ‘‘ He heard 
there that prayer which began 
with the Father and ended with 
the hymn of many names!’ 
Surely there is not much evidence 
to be extracted from this! 

4, Justin Martyr, as already 
noticed before, says that Christians 
met together, xozvads evxas ποιη- 
δόμενοι, &e.; but it is acknow- 
ledged on all hands that this ex- 
pression proves nothing in behalf 
of liturgies. Justin’s words about 
the prayer of the officiating min- 
ister have been considered in the 
preceding note. 

5. Irenzeus shows that in his time 
the words ‘‘for ever and ever,”’ 
εἰς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, Were 
used in Christian worship-—a very 
minute contribution towards a 
liturgy ; especially as the words 
occur frequently in the New Testa- 
ment, and might as well be em- 
ployed in extemporaneous prayer, 
as in one previously composed. 

6. Tertullian relates that psalms 


were sung in Christian worship ; 
and he mentions the things which 
Christians prayed for, such as the 
peace and welfare of the emperor, 
&c., but he does not say that such 
prayers were expressed in a set 
form of words. On the contrary, 
the following passages, in which he 
refers to such prayers, shows that 
they were not in any prescribed 
form: ‘‘Illuc suspicientes Christiani 
manibus expansis, quia innocuis, 
capite nudo, quia non erubescimus; 
denique sine monitore quia de pectore 
oramus, precantus sumus semper 
pro omnibus Imperatoribus.”— 
Tert. ‘Apol.’ ὃ 33. Whatever part 
of the Christian service this may 
refer to, sine monitore quia de pectore 
oramus, must mean extemporaneous 
prayer. 

7. Clement of Alexandria, accord- 
ing to Bingham, says, ‘‘that the 
congregation prostrated themselves 
in prayers, having, as it were, one 
common voice.” The words of 
Clement are, ἐστὲ γοῦν τὸ παρ᾽ 
ἡμῖν θυδιαότηριον ἐνταῦθα τὸ 
ἐπίψειον, τὸ ἀθροιόμα τῶν ταῖς 
εὐχαῖς ἀνακειμένων, μίαν 
ὥσπερ ἔχον φωνὴν τὴν κοινὴν; 
καὶ μίαν γνώμην .---" Stromat.’ 
vii. 6. And contrasting the Chris- 
tian worship with the sacrifices 
and religious services of heathens 
to their gods, he says, ‘Our 
altar here on earth is the as- 
sembly of those who are offered 
up to God in prayers, having, as it 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 223 


prayer in Christian Churches, is to be found in contem- 
porary authorities. And even in that century, although 
the evidence is conclusive as far as it goes, it does not 
make it certain that other prayers suggested by par- 
ticular circumstances or occasions were altogether ex- 
cluded. 

In the fourth century several distinct liturgies are 
found clearly established in different Churches, and, 
having been then committed to writing, some of the 
most celebrated of them are still preserved. 

This, therefore, very briefly expressed, is the sum and 
substance of the contemporary patristic testimony ; and 
it points us conclusively to the. third and fourth cen- 
turies, and not to the apostolic age, for the distinct 
appearance and growth to maturity of formal liturgies 
in Christian Churches. 

Another distinct consideration in the liturgical ques- 
tion, which confirms the conclusion just arrived at, is 
presented by the fact that no rules or forms were ever 
in the first centuries imposed upon a Church by any 
authority from without. The Apostles, as we have seen, 
left no commands on this subject; and after them 
nothing interfered with this general independence for 
Every Church at the 


but only that all were praying 


three or four centuries at least. 


were, one voice, their common 


utterance, and being of one mind.” 
On which it is sufficient to observe 
thatthe φωνὴν τὴν ποινῆὴν cannot 
mean anything more liturgical than 
the κοιν αἱ εὐχαὶ of Justin, which 
did not mean a precomposed form, 


together. 

Besides, the two last-mentioned 
authorities, Tertullian and Clement, 
belong to the third century rather 
than the second. 


224 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


beginning arranged the details of its own public services 
according to its own discretion; and when the Episcopal 
form of government had been established, it was left to 
the prudence, choice, and judgment of each bishop 
to decide what words and ceremonies he would use in 
the devotions of his Church; and each one varied his 
petitions according to the existing circumstances and 
emergencies of his place and people. During this time 
prayers, originally extemporaneous or composed by 
individual bishops, were from their beauty or suitable- 
ness repeatedly used, and grew into a settled form, 
without being committed to writing, or having any 
authority beyond their own Church. And sometimes, 
in the third century, the liturgical arrangements made 
by some distinguished bishop were regarded with much 
veneration and continued long in use. Thus it is men- 
tioned by Basil that the prayers and devotional rites of 
the Church at Neo-Cxsarea, which had been arranged 
for them by their Bishop Gregory (Thaumaturgus) in 
the middle of the third century, were still, a hundred 
years after his decease, scrupulously retained by them : 
without any addition.’ 

At a later period “ bishops agreed by common consent 
to conform their liturgies to the model of the metropoli- 
tan Churches of the province to which they belonged,” 

1 Basil, in his panegyric on them, οὐ πρᾶξίν τινα, ov λόγον, 
Gregory of Neo-Cesarea, says that ov τύπον τινὰ μυστικὸν παρ᾽ 
the Church there had not chosen ὃν ἐρεῖνος κατέλιπε τῇ énudAn- 


to add a single action, or word, or 67a προδέθηπαγν .-- 6 Spirit. 
mystic symbol, to what he had left Sanct.’ ὃ 29. 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 225 


the first intimation of which is given in the Council of 
Epone (a. D. 517)... And when the Roman empire was 
broken up into different nations, then national Churches 
and national liturgies began together ; although even 
then different liturgical forms were sometimes used 
together in the same national Church, as was the case in 
our own country at the time of the Reformation. 

A third source of argument in the questions about 
the worship of the primitive Church is found in the 
ancient liturgies themselves. Some of these which are 
in existence still, and from which many parts of our own 
formularies are derived, have the names of Apostles 
attached to them; and have naturally attracted much 
attention from their acknowledged antiquity, willingly 
supposed in many quarters to be greater than it really is. 

In the Church of Rome some of these liturgies have 
been accepted as the genuine offspring of the Apostles, 
to whom they were popularly ascribed. And one of the 
latest of the learned Anglican writers on this subject, 
while he does not venture to claim for the most ancient 
liturgy an earlier date than the end of the second cen- 
tury, boldly assumes that “though not composed by the 
Apostles whose names they bear, they were the legiti- 
mate development of their unwritten tradition respecting 
the Christian sacrifice ; the words probably in the most 
important parts, the general tenor in all portions de- 


:The Council of Epone (A. p. tenent provinciales eorum obser- 
517) directs, ‘ad celebranda divina vare debebunt.’’—Can. 27. 
officia ordinem quem Metropolitani 


15 


2950 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


But 
seeing that the Apostles left no written tradition what- 
ever respecting “the Christian sacrifice,” but what is 
altogether at variance with the teaching of these litur- 
gies; and seeing that, in the entire absence of all con- 


scending unchanged from the apostolic authors.” ἢ 


temporary testimony, it is utterly impossible to know 
what was their unwritten tradition, if any such ever 
existed; this claim of apostolic authority is nothing but 
a gratuitous, unsupported assumption of Dr. Neale’s; 
and is only one of the numerous instances of the ten- 
dency of ecclesiastical writers in all ages to take for 
eranted that whatever they approve of in the Church 
at any given time must have come from apostolic 


hands. 


For it is acknowledged that these ancient liturgies 
as we have them now were gradually formed, and grew 


1 Neale’s ‘‘ History of the Holy 
Eastern Church,’ p. 319. A good 
specimen of the untrustworthy 
nature of the most confident asser- 
tions of learned men, when their 
minds are strongly biased in a par- 
ticular direction, is seen in the 
manner in which Cardinal Bona 
speaks of these ancient liturgies. 

He acknowledges, indeed, that 
the ‘Liturgy of Peter’ is not really 
his; and that the liturgies of 
Matthew and Mark are doubtful. 
But he declares that the ‘liturgy 
of James’ is proved to be the 
genuine production of the Apostle 
by Allatius, who ‘‘prolatis anti- 
quorum testimoniis genuinum 


Jacobi foetum esse demonstrat.” 
But on turning to Allatius, all his 
‘‘demonstrations ”’ are found to be 
nothing earlier than a quotation 
from Proclus, a patriarch of Con- 
stantinople in the fifth century, and 
a reference to the Council of Trullo 
at the end of the seventh. Bona’s 
own proofs are only such insuf- 
ficient testimony, as (1) ‘‘ perpetua 
Ecclesiz Greece traditio ;’’ (2) ‘‘ex. 
emplaria in vetustissimis codicibus 
exarata,”” with no date mentioned 5 
(3) quotations from it by ancient 
Fathers, but no date or instance 
given; and (4) the Council of 
Trullo, a. p. 692. 


ee 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. aa" 


up by slow degrees and various changes from the apos- 
tolic age to the middle of the fourth century; of which 
a singular proof (among others) is supplied by the 
remarks of Basil about the liturgy of the Church at 
Neo-Cesarea, which, he says, was in many respects 
deficient and old-fashioned ; because from reverence to 
the memory of their Bishop Gregory (Thaumaturgus) 
they had admitted no alterations since his time, and had 
not received any rites, prayers, or practices which had 
subsequently been introduced. It was not until the 
middle of the fourth century that the earliest of these 
liturgies were committed to writing, necessarily in the 
form which they had then acquired.? And it is admitted 
that “the later additions are so interwoven with the 
older parts that they cannot be separated without de- 
stroying the liturgies altogether.’ From whence it 
follows that there can be no solid ground for asserting 
that any particular parts of them are even as old as the 
second century ; much less the very words of the Apos- 
tles themselves, unless some external evidence can 


sufficiently attest their date. But all the external 


1 Basil, ‘ De Spiritu Sancto,’ § 29: 
Ταύτῃ τοι καὶ πολλὰ τῶν παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῖς τελουμένων ἐλλειπῶϑ 
ἔχειν δορεῖ, διὰ τὸ τῆς παταό- 
TAGEWS ἀρχατιότροπον: οὐδὲν 
yap ἠνέδχοντο οἱ κατα διαδο- 
χὴν tas ἐ»σιληδσίας οἶκον ομή- 
ὅαντες τῶν pet ἐκεῖνον 
ἐφευρεθέντων παραδέξασθαι 
εἰς προσθήκην .---8ὅ86 Note, p. 224. 

2 In the persecutions under Dio- 


cletian and his associates, a strict 
enquiry was made after the sacred 
books belonging to Christian 
Churches ; but, although copies of 
the Scriptures were often discover- 
ed, books of ritual or of divine 
service appear never to have been 
found. ΑΒ far as liturgies existed, 
they were not written until after 
that time. 


228 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


evidence in this case proves that those parts, which 
Dr. Neale wishes to be the most ancient, cannot ‘be 
earlier than the third century.’ 


1 The object of Dr. Neale in his 


‘Tetralogia Liturgica’ is, to estab- 
lish the apostolic authority of the 
three doctrines of ‘‘the real pre- 
sence,” i. e. the actual objective 
change of the Eucharistic elements 
into the body and blood of Christ ; 
a true and beneficial sacrifice 
offered to God in the Eucharist ; 
and the duty and advantage of 
praying for the dead—or, in his 
own words, ‘‘oblationem mysticam 
vere et realiter in corpus et sangui- 
ném Domini nostri transmutari ; in 
Eucharistia verum et salutare 
sacrificium Deo offerri ; preces pro 
defunctorum requie perutiles 115 
esse.”” And his method of proof— 
perfectly logical in form—is as 
follows : 

As the ancient liturgies are of 
apostolic antiquity and authority, 
the doctrines contained in them 
ure apostolic ; 

The three doctrines above-named 
are contained in the ancient litur- 
gies ; therefore— 

The three doctrines above-named 
are apostolic. 

Now, Dr. Neale most clearly 
shows that these doctrines are indis- 
putably, and without any disguise, 
taught in the ancient liturgies ; but 
he utterly fails to prove the apos- 
tolic antiquity and authority of the 
liturgies which teach them. The 
whole truth of the matter is, that 
these ancient liturgies, as they are, 


belong to the fourth century, and 


contain the doctrines which in 
that century prevailed. 

The evidence of the New Testa- 
ment, and of subsequent Christian 
writers down to the end of the 
second century, shows that the 
three doctrines in question had not 
at that time appeared, and proves 
that those parts of the liturgies 
which express them cannot be 
earlier than the third century. 

Dr. Neale, in his ‘Essays on 
Liturgiology,’ endeavours to show 
that a considerable number of ex- 
pressions in the Epistles of the New 
Testament are quotations from 
ancient liturgies—a very interest- 
ing subject of enquiry—and if this 
theory could have been established, 
it would have made it evident that 
some portions, at any rate, of these 
formularies were of the very earliest 
antiquity. But the enquiry does not 


“issue in a proof. The quotation 


from a hymn in Eph. iv. 14, has 
been already noticed; and that 
hymns were sung in churches from 
the beginning is admitted on all 
hands. But of all the allegod quo- 
tations from prayers, only one 
instance ‘has anything like an 
approach to satisfactory evidence 
in its favour, namely, ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς 
ovu εἶδε &e. in 1 Cor. ii. 9, which 
is found in the ‘Anaphora of St. 
James.’ 

The evidence in this instance, to © 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 229 


These ancient documents, therefore, do not at all 
invalidate the conclusion derived from other testimony, 
that liturgical forms were at any rate not used until after 
the apostolic times. 

But independently of such questions there is a very in- 
structive lesson for us to learn from the liturgical history 
of the early centuries. For when liturgies had been 
compiled and were habitually used, they were not 
regarded as forms so fixed and rigid, that they were 
not afterwards to be revised or altered ; or so sacred, 
that they could not be touched without irreverence and 
danger. The exceptional conduct of the Church at 
Neo-Cexesarea in this respect was an amiable weakness, 
which might be to a certain extent excused, but was 
not thought worthy of imitation. On the contrary the 
liturgies were continually receiving alterations, as times 
were changed, and new wants or thoughts arose: men 
being then wise enough to see that the liturgy was 
made for the Church, and not the Church for the 


the effect that the words are quoted: 
from the liturgy, and not vice versd, 
amounts to this: St. Paul gives the 
words as a quotation, ‘‘As it is 
written ;’ but they are not found 
exactly in this form in the Old Tes- 
tament, while they arein the liturgy. 
And, secondly, the words in the 
Epistle are an abbreviated sentence, 
requiring something to be supplied; 
but, in the liturgy, the sentence is 
complete. 

But then, on the other hand, it is 
* to be noticed, that St. Paul says that 


the words which he quotes ‘‘are 
written” —y éy pantar—which the 
liturgies at that time were not ; that 
quotations from the Old Testament 
in the New are sometimes given 
without much regard to verbal 
accuracy ; and, what is a stronger 
objection, no one of the patristic 
commentators on this text—Origen, 
Chrysostom, and Jerome—knew 
anything of its being a quotation 
from a liturgy, which they could 
hardly have failed to know, if such 
had been the case. 


230 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


liturgy. So that it was deemed no disrespect to the 
memory of venerable names or cherished traditions to 
adapt their Prayer-book to the new manners or feelings 
of another age; nor any injury to a living Church, that 
there should also be life, and consequently change, in 
the forms of its habitual devotions. So entirely, indeed, 
in the early centuries were liturgical forms regarded as 
subordinate to the actual circumstances of any Christian 
community, that when a district was divided and a new 
bishoprick erected in what had been a portion of the 
older diocese, “the new Church was not obliged to 
follow the model and prescriptions of the old, but might 
frame to herself a form of divine service agreeable to her 
own circumstances and condition.” 

Are we more wise in this our day, when we have 
allowed more than two hnndred years to pass,—years 
of immense changes in everything connected with the 
life of man ; changes ecclesiastical, political, social, intel- 
lectual, and moral,—with scarcely an infinitesimal change 
in our Church Liturgy and laws? And when notwith- 
standing the fact that the last revision of our Prayer- 
book was effected under circumstances the most hostile 
to a sound and sober appreciation of truth and wisdom, 
good men are now possessed with so superstitious a 
veneration, or so unreasonable a timidity, that they cry 
out against the bare proposal of a liturgical revision, 
and the most temperate ecclesiastical reform ? 

The ancient Churches made their liturgies so flexible 
and impressible that they altered their ritual to suit . 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 231 


errors in doctrine and practice, into which they fell; 
while we shrink from any alteration, even that with the 
New Testament in our hands we may make our religious 
services as far as possible conformable to the divine 
record of Christian truth. And with a singular con- 
trariety to the spirit of antiquity which we profess to 
venerate, we press our Anglican Prayer-book and formu- 
laries upon all the Churches which missionary labours 
have gathered in, foreign lands, without any sufficient 
consideration of the most widely different habits, climes, 
and races ; just as if the Church of the English Reforma- 
tion were the absolute and essential model of Christian 
perfection,—the one only visible body of Christ to which 
all Christians must belong. 


III. The “ times and seasons” observed as sacred in 

the apostolic Church will next demand a brief notice, to 
complete our view of its religious worship. And here 
it must be at once acknowledged that there is in the 
New Testament no trace whatever of any one of those 
annual days of hallowed commemoration which are now 
celebrated in Christian Churches. 
* However seemly, grateful, and edifying we may justly 
esteem it to mark the anniversaries of our Lord’s birth, 
death, and resurrection, with other days of special 
import in the Christian year, they were not distinguished 
in the ecclesiastical arrangements of the primitive 
Church, but are of a later and unapostolic origin. 

But the observance of the first day of the week, or 


232 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


“TLord’s Day,” stands upon a different footing, and 
plainly belongs to the New Testament period; although 
no commandment is repeated there for its religious 
celebration, or much notice taken of its recurrence. 

In the earliest existence of the Christian Church, when 

a holy enthusiasm was strong in all its members, and 
- their whole life was felt to be consecrated and elevated 
in Christ, all distinction of secular and sacred seasons 
seemed out of place; every day was a day of united 
worship ; every day was holy to the Lord. This, indeed, 
was always, and is still, an abiding principle of the 
Gospel life, that all our standing-ground of acceptance, — 
safety, and privilege being complete in Christ, and our 
whole selves, our souls and bodies, being presented as 
a living sacrifice to Him, no outward ordinances are 
essential to this completeness, no observance of special 
days can be an adequate substitute for this self-surrender. 
But as a high state of spiritual elevation cannot in ordi- 
nary cases be long sustained; and man’s complex 
nature needs some external ordinances, as well as a 
power within; and as, moreover, a large number of 
Christians must then, as now, have been unable to attend 
a daily religious assembly ; the observance of certain re- 
curring days was needful for general edificatiun. A 
sacred day became a religious necessity for the Christian 
Church ; and it is from this point that we have to view the 
question of the obligation of the Fourth Commandment. 

The Jewish Sabbath was indeed of no obligation in 
the Gospel Church; and by Gentile Christians it was 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 233 


better avoided as a remnant of a discarded dispensation. 
But the Fourth Commandment is not Judaistic in its 
essential character, but, like all the rest of the decalogue, 
has in its very wording a broad application to human 
life. And in conformity with it, a Christian day of rest 
and of religious worship, equally with the Jewish Sab- 
bath the seventh day after six according to the exact 
wording of the Law,’ was established in the Church, as 
soon apparently as the peculiar circumstances of the 
case would admit of its general introduction. 

In modern discussions on the nature and obligation 
of the Christian Sabbath, great weight has not unrea- 
sonably been attached to the manner in which St. Paul 
warns Gentile Christians against the observance of 
Jewish days (specially in Rom. xiv. 5, Gal. iv. 10, Col. 11. 
15), without a single word about any Christian day more 


hallowed or sacred than the rest.2 But a consideration 


1In considering the Sabbath 
question it must not be forgotten 
that neither in the Fourth Com- 
mandment nor anywhere else in the 
Mosaic law is the seventh day of the 
weelkc ordered to be kept. It is 
always the seventh day after six ; 
and, consequently the observance 
of the first day of the week is just 
as conformable to this law, in the 
letter and the spirit, as the Jewish 
Sabbath day ; nor was any divine 
authority required for changing 
the day in the Christian Church. 

2 The following valuable remarks 
from Dr. Eadie’s ‘Commentary on 
Galatians’ show that there is some- 


thing to be said in reply to the 
repudiators of a ‘‘ Christian Sab- 
bath,’ even on their own ground, 
and without going beyond the texts 
upon which they especially rely. 
Such considerations greatly 
strengthen the conclusion which I 
have endeavoured to deduce from 
an historical view of the question. 
‘Gal. iv. 10, ‘Ye observe days 
and months,’ &c. Dean Alford 
adds, ‘Notice how utterly such a 
verse is at variance with any and 
every theory of a Christian Sabbath, 
cutting at the root, as it does, of all 
obligatory observation of times as 
such.’ C* Bat 


234 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


of the history of Sabbath observances during the period 
of transition between Judaism and Christianity seems to 
show that this argument is not so conclusive as it might 
at first appear. 

When the Israelites were brought out from Egypt, 
they passed through their transition state in the wilder- 
ness, separated from all other people, while they received 
their Law, and became accustomed to its most essential 
enactments. But Christianity had to spring up and 
develop its religious and moral system in the presence 
of older religions still in force, and coming in contact 
with it at every turn. In particular it had to work its 
way in the midst of Judaism, which was not brought 
abruptly to an end to make room for it, but continued 


‘* But,” says Dr. Eadie, ‘this 


generalization is far too sweeping ; 
for— 

“ΕἼ, It makes assertion on a sub- 
ject which is not before the mind 
of the Apostle at all. Nothing is 
further from his thoughts, or his 
course of rebuke and expostulation, 
than the Christian Sabbath and its 
theme—the resurrection of Christ. 

“2, The Apostle is not condemn- 
ing the obligatory observances ‘ of 
times as such ;’ but he is condemn- 
ing the observance only of the 
times, which the Galatians, in their 
relapse into Judaism, kept as 
sacred ; for their keeping of such 
Jewish festivals was the proof and 
result of their partial apostacy. 

“8, Nor is it even Jewish festi- 
vals as such which he condemns ; 
for both before and after this period 


he observed some of them himself. 


But, first he condemns the Galatian 
Gentiles for observing sacred Jewish 
seasons which, not being intended 
for them, had therefore no autho- 
rity overthem. The Gentile keep- 
ing of Jewish Sabbaths, or of Pass- 
overs, Pentecosts, New Moons, or 
Jtbilees, was in itself a wrong thing 
—a perilous blunder then, as it 
would be a wretched anachronism 
now. And, secondly, he condemns 
the observance of these ‘times,’ be- 
cause the Galatians regarded such 
observance as essential to salvation, 
and as supplementing faith in the 
atoning work of Christ. These limi- 
tations are plainly supplied by the 
context, and the true theory of a 
Christian Sabbath, or rather Lord’s 
Day, is not in the least involved in 
the discussion.”’ 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 235 


for a time to overlap the new dispensation; and thus 
some peculiar and apparently anomalous results were > 
produced which must necessarily be taken into con- 
sideration. 

Hence it was that at the beginning of the Gospel the 
Jewish Christians continued to keep their original Sab- 
bath, and therefore no other day of rest was ordered for 
them ; yet immediately after the resurrection of Christ, 
the first day of the week was observed by His disciples 
as a day of special and religious interest (John xx. 
19, 26). 

When Gentile Christians were lens into the 
Church, they were, of course, not commanded to keep 
the Jewish Sabbath. They were rather discouraged from 
doing so, lest they should make to themselves a mixed 
and mongrel religion of Judaism and Christianity, as 
some Gentile Churches in fact began to do. The great 
object in dealing with them was to raise their minds to 
the purity of the Christian faith out of the carnal, sen- 
suous, formal religionism, which they saw in their own 
heathen rites, and in Judaism as then popularly held. 
Yet the first day of the week was kept by Gentile 
Churches; and it is to its observance among them that 
reference is made in the New Testament (Acts xx..7; 
1 Cor. xvi. 2). 

If it be thought strange that no more than this is 
recorded, let it be remembered that before the Jewish 
polity was entirely broken up by the destruction of 
Jerusalem, it must have been impossible without some 


236 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


violent disruption to effect a complete change from the 
Jewish to the Christian day. But the Gospel in this, as 
in some other parts of Christian duty, was to work by 
slow but effectual influences, rather than by precise 
commands ; to establish principles rather than enforce 
precepts. And while Christians were a small and feeble 
body in the midst of heathen populations, the hindrances 
to the observance of any Sabbath at all must have been 
so great, that the rule, “I will have mercy and not sacri- 
fice,” must have had a very wide application to their 
case. For a Sabbath in accordance with the Fourth 
Commandment is necessarily a social institution, and 
could not well have a place except in a religion which 
had to some considerable extent penetrated and coloured 
the general life of a community. It could not, therefore, 
have appeared at once as an ordinance in Gentile 
Churches, even had there been nothing else to hinder its 
observance. 

With the downfall of the Jewish nation a new and 
distinct era in the Church began. Christianity became 
formally and fully, “the kingdom of God,’—“ the vine- 
yard of the Lord’s planting ;’ and the Christian Sabbath 
relieved (so to speak) from the rivalry of the Jewish day, 
gained a more decided position in the piety and morals | 
of the Church. To distinguish it from the Jewish day; 
and at the same time to commemorate our Lord's 
resurrection, the first day of the week was permanently 
adopted; and the manner in which St. John terms it 
“The Lord’s. Day,” without a word of explanation or 


PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


237 


remark, seems to indicate that before. the end of the 
apostolic age it had become a well-known and acknow- 
ledged institution in the Church. 

In the second century distinct proofs of the obser- 
vance of this day are found; and by the end of that 
period (and we know not how long before), to abstain 
from all but necessary work on the Lord's day was con- 


sidered a religious duty." 


In the reign of Constantine Sunday was recognized by 


law as a sacred day, and all public business was ordered 


to be suspended. 


The celebration of the Christian Sunday was specially 


marked from the very first by assemblies for divine 


: In Pliny’s celebrated epistle to 
Trajan [Ep. x. 96] he reports that 
the Christians were ‘‘soliti stato die 
ante lucem convenire, carmenque 
Christo quasi deo dicere secum in- 
vicem,” without, however, naming 
the day. 

In the Epistle of Barnabas [A. Ὁ. 
120-140] it is said, 420 καὶ 
ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην 
εἰς εὐφροσύνην ἐν ἡ καὶ ὁ 
Ἰηδοῦς ἀνέστη ἐπ γεκρῶν.-- 
§ 15. 

Justin Martyr mentions τὴν δὲ 
ἡλίου ἡμέραν κοινῇ πάντες 
τὴν συνέλευσιν ποιούμεθα, 
ἐπειδὰν πρώτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα, 
ἐν ἡ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ ὀκότος καὶ τὴν 
ὕλην τρέψας πόόμον ἐποίηόσε, 
καὶ Ἰηδοῦς Χριότὸς ὁ ἡμέτερος 
δωτὴρ τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐπ 
νερῶν avééry.— Apol,’ i. 67. 


And again, τῇ Tov ἡλίου λεγο- 
μένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων xara 
πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ 
τὸ αὐτὸ δυνέλευσις γίψνεται. 
—§ 87. 

Irenzus says, τὸ δὲ ἐν κυριακῇ 
μὴ κλίνειν γόνυ δύμβολόν 
ἐότι τῆς ἀναστάσεως. --" Fragm. 
de Pasch.’ 

Tertullian not only mentions the 
observance of the Lord’s day, but 
shows that it was kept as a Sabbath, 
or day of rest. ‘‘Die dominico 
resurrectionis non ab isto tantum 
(genti flectendo) sed omni anxieta- 
tis habitu et officio cavere debemus, 
differentes etiam negotia ne quem 
diabolo locum demus.”—‘ De Orat.’ 
23. 

After Tertullian’s time the 
observance of Sunday by Christians 
is plain and distinct. 


238 PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


worship and religious instruction; and the notices of it, 
which we meet with beyond the limits of the New Tes- 
tament, show that it was considered a day of joy, all 
fasting being then strictly prohibited.t. A Jewish rigour 
in observing the Christian Sabbath was discouraged in 
the early Church. | 

Some lingering influences of the Jewish Sabbath con- 
tinued to be felt even in the fourth century in the Eastern 
Church, where Saturday was regarded as a religious 
festival in commemoration of the creation of the world, 
as Sunday commemorated the resurrection of Christ. 
But in the West, the Saturday festival was altogether 
repudiated as an undesirable remnant of Judaism. 


1 “Die dominico jejunium nefas τὴν uvpiauny éopratere, ὅτι 
ducimus, vel de geniculisadorare.” τὸ μὲν δημιουργίας ἐστὶν 
—Tert. ‘De Coron. Milit.’ § 3. ὑπόμνημα, ἡ δὲ ἀναστάσεως. 

Τὸ σάββατον μέντοι καὶ —‘Constit. Apost.’ vii. 23. 


LECTURE VI. 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


VI. 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


HE religion of Jesus Christ is emphatically a dis- 
pensation of the Spirit. His kingdom is a spiritual 
kingdom. His Church in the truest sense—“ the Church 
which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in 
all” —consists of those who are united to Him by no 
mere outward forms or symbols of profession, but by a 
living faith within, by the power of the Divine Spirit 
raising them to the higher life of God’s children, and to 
the position of citizens of heaven. 

And even the visible Christian Church, as the outward 
form and exhibition of this spiritual kingdom, so far as it 
can be seen, in the world, partakes of this spiritual cha- 
- racter ; not only in that its genuine power and influence 
operate from within, and give a manifestation and 
organism to the Spirit’s invisible presence, but also in 
the characteristic absence of divinely appointed rites and 
ceremonies, which distinguishes the Christian Church 


from the earlier dispensation out of which it grew. 
16 (241) 


242 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


It has been already noticed how striking is the con- 
trast between the manner in which the Apostles acted 
as the legislators of the Christian Church, and the 
method adopted by Moses in his legislation for the 
people of Israel. And it may now be further observed 
that all the ceremonial and ritual laws of the Jews, 
including their priesthood, sacrifices, and purifications, 
having been fulfilled and realized in the life, death, and 
intercession of Christ, no religious rites whatever were 
substituted in their place. And no visible, tangible, 
ordinances at all of divine appointment are to be found 
in the Christian Church, except the two simple institu- 
tions bequeathed by Jesus to His disciples in all future 
time, which are now called the Christian Sacraments. 

Simple and unobtrusive as these two sacred ordinances 
appear in their original institution, they would under any 
circumstances have demanded a marked and reverent 
attention from their exclusive dignity as the appoint- 
ments of our Lord. But the manner in which they have 
been dealt with by different generations in the Church, 
beginning with very early, although not the earliest, 
times,—the errors and superstitions, which have been 
reared upon them, not wholly demolished and dissipated 
even in reformed Churches,—the great influence for 
good or evil which sound or unsound dogmatic teaching 
respecting them, and a consequent healthy or unhealthy 
use of them, has had on Christian communities and their 
several members,—and the peculiar tenacity with which 
false opinions of this nature seem to adhere to the 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 243 


minds of Christian men,—have imparted a sad and painful 
interest to the history of the two sacraments. And it is 
therefore all the more necessary to consider them with a 
careful and grave attention in a review of the Kcclesias- 
tical Polity of the apostolic Church ;—all the more 
necessary to go boldly to the New Testament; to the 
practice and authority of the Apostles; and with a 
devout but determined spirit to enquire from them what 
the sacraments of Christ really are to us; and to bid all 
inferior teachings and authorities give way before their 
instructions as mists before the mid-day sun. 

The two sacraments are both alike in this, that they 
are outward signs of an inward state ;—material symbols 
of spiritual operations ;—visible means of representing 
the invisible blessings which result from union with 
Christ, and are bestowed by Him, as the head, upon 
His true disciples as members of His body. And in the 
intelligent and believing use of these outward signs, pre- 
sented to the senses, the inward spiritual man has these 
invisible blessings assured and imparted to him. They 
serve, therefore, to indicate and seal to our consciences 
the promises of saving grace in Christ, and also to testify 
on our part our faith and dutiful obedience towards God.’ 
Or, in the words of our twenty-fifth Article, they are 


1Fr. Turretinus, professor of 
theology at Geneva in 1688, whose 
works deserve to be less forgotten 
than they are in these days, gives 
the following wholesome definition 
of the Christian sacraments, which 
he says are, ‘‘Signa et sigilia sacra 


visibilia divinitus instituta ad signi- 
ficandas et obsignandas conscientiis 
nostris promissiones grati@ salu- 
taris in Christo, et nostram vicissim 
fidem, et pietatem ac obsequium 
erga Deum contestandam.”—Loc. 
xix. Qu. 1, 9. 


244 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


“sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s 
good will towards us, by the which He doth work in- 
visibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also 
strengthen and confirm our faith in Him..... And in 
such only as worthily receive the same they have a 
wholesome effect or operation.” 

But as with this general resemblance each one of these 
sacred ordinances has its own special character and 
distinctive meaning, they require to be noticed sepa- 
rately. And the nature and use of baptism, as it is seen 
in the Church of the Apostles, may be first considered. 

The earliest distinct mention of Christian baptism is 
found in the commission given by our Lord to His 
Apostles, when not long before His Ascension he bade 
them “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, 
whatsoever I have commanded you.” The words, in- 
deed, which were spoken by Jesus in His conversation 
with Nicodemus in a much earlier part of His ministry, 
have been commonly supposed to refer to Christian 
baptism, when he said, “ Except a man be born of water, 
and of the Spirit ;” but such reference is by no means 
certam. The words probably allude to water as a 
common emblem of the Divine Spirit’s operation in 
purifying the heart from sin; like the expression in the 
fifty-first Psalm : “ Wash me, and I shall be whiter than 
snow ;” and the emblematical washing of the Apostles’ 
feet by Jesus at the last supper; and just-as the some- 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 245 


what similar form of words, “ He shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost and with fire,” refers to the common 
effects of that element as an illustration of the subduing, 
softening, kindling influences of the Spirit upon the 
naturally hardened heart of man. 

The baptism of John, as the harbinger of Christ, was 
not Christian baptism, although some of those who had 
only been baptized by him seem many years afterwards 
to have ranked as Christians. 

And even the baptism of some of the professed dis- 
ciples of Jesus during His ministry on earth, and appa- 
rently under His immediate direction, could not have 
been a baptism of the same type and significance as 
that which the Apostles administered after His Ascen- 
sion. Christian baptism, in the full meaning of the 
words, could not take place until the Apostles began to 
gather believers into the visible Church of Christ, and 
that, as before shown, was not and could not be done 
until Jesus had finished His work on earth, and the 
Divine Comforter had been given in His stead. 

The words in which our Lord gave His Apostles their 
commission to baptize, and which may be regarded as 
the institution of this sacrament, express with great 
brevity, but with equal distinctness, its position in the 
Christian system. And after noticing this, a fuller 
explanation of the ordinance, in its administration, sig- 
nificance, efficacy, and special bearing on the Christian 
life, may be gathered from the manner in which it seems 
to have been-used in the ministrations of the Apostles 


246 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


and early Evangelizers, and from the references which 
are made to it in the Epistolary portions of the New 
Testament. 

It may be at once inferred from the words of the 
original institution that this sacrament was to be an 
initiatory rite in the Church.’ It was to be administered 
to those who believed in the One God, the Father of 
all; who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son 
of God, the long-promised and now manifested Saviour ; 
who accepted the doctrine that the Divine Spirit is the 
author of holiness in man, and would lead them to 
the knowledge and practice of the Christian life; and 
who with this amount of understanding and conviction 
were desirous to renounce the dominion and deeds of 
sin, to become obedient subjects of Christ’s spiritual 
kingdom, and to join themselves to Him and to His 
Church. To such persons, their baptism was to be the 
sign and seal of their discipleship; and thus to be 
the formal evidence of their Christian profession,—their 
actual admission into the visible fellowship of the Church ; 
—the symbol of their union with Christ and of their 


1The force of Christ’s commis- 
sion in Matt. xxviii. 19 is somewhat 
obscured in our English version 
from the word μαθητεύσατε being 
translated ‘‘teach.’’ It ought to be, 
‘¢Go and make-disciples-of all the 
nations ;’ and then follows the 
mode or process by which such dis- 
ciples were to be made ; namely, 
first, ‘‘ by baptizing them into the 


name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit ;” not, of 
course, without some intelligent 
apprehension of what the divine 
name, and the baptism into it, im- 
plied ; and, secondly, by teaching 
those who had been baptized to 
observe all the commandments of 
Christ, 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, | ae 


participation in the privileges which that union imparts. 
And having been thus admitted to this standing-eround 
in Christ, they were to make further progress in Christian 
knowledge and experience,—to be “ taught to observe all 
things whatsoever He had commanded them.” 

And thus it was evident from the first that Christian 
baptism, though in its outward form one single act, 
represented no single, isolated, state or feeling,—but a 
᾿ς spiritual transaction carried on in the spirit and con- 
science and then declaring itself externally,—a power 
and influence which, from the beginning, attested by the 
baptismal rite, was to go on to the end of the inward 
Christian life, and be diffused over the whole of it. 

Accordingly, on examining the manner in which this 
sacrament was used, and the estimation in which it was 
held in the Church of the Apostles, we find in the ac- 
counts presented by the New Testament an ample 
confirmation of the foregoing general view, exhibited 
with a considerable variety of details and circumstances. 

The Aposiles in their preaching,—. e., in proclaiming 
Christ, as the heralds of His kingdom, and offering Him 
to the acceptance of men,—pressed home upon the 
consciences of their hearers the conviction of sin, a sense 
of moral and spiritual deficiency and need ; holding out 
to them at the same time a confident assurance that God 
had sent a Saviour all-sufficient for the deliverance of 
man, by believing in whom their sins would be taken 
away ; and that the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit 
would be imparted to those by whom this Saviour was 


248 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


received. ‘To the Jews they pointed out that “Jesus of 
Nazareth,” whom many of them had kuown, whom some 
of them had persecuted and slain, was the very Christ of 
their ancient Scriptures,—the very desire and hope 
of their nation. To their Gentile hearers they appealed 
on the grounds of common sense, reason, experience, and 
natural conscience; and exhorted them to turn from 
their senseless and debasing idolatry to the one living 
God,—the God of nature and of revealed truth. But 
equally upon all they urged the necessity of a change 
of mind and thought respecting God and themselves, 
and of a new life of privilege and duty in Christ, “ testi- 
fying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks repentance 
towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
And those who received their words, and voluntarily 
professed this repentance and faith, were baptizing in 
the divine name and received into Christian fellowship. — 

The New Testament records no office or religious 
service as having been used in the administration of 
baptism; nor any particular form of words for the 
Christian profession of those who were baptized. Al- 
though at least nine different instances of baptism are 
expressly related in the Acts of the Apostles, besides 
all the allusions in the Epistles, yet in none of them 
is the actual form or manner of the administration given. 
The historian seems to have been restrained from giving 
any such details, lest a superstitious use should after- 
wards be made of them. But although in the brevity 
of the narrative men are sometimes said to have been 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 249 


baptized “in the name of the Lord,” or “in the name of 
the Lord Jesus,” I can see in this no reason for suppos- 
ing that the formula given by Jesus Himself in Mait. 
xxviil. 19, was ever omitted or abbreviated.’ 

The religious profession of those who were baptized 
seems to have been made at first in the simplest manner 
possible, and without any particular form of words. In 
the course of no long time, however, it would naturally 
come to pass, and would be found convenient, that there 
should be some acknowledged modes of expressing the 
requisite repentance and faith on the part of the baptized, 
though these modes might differ in different Churches. 
And it is not impossible that the “answer of a good 
conscience towards God,” in 1 Pet. 111. 21, may show that 
the custom had already begun of asking the candidate 
for baptism certain questions, by his answers to which 
his profession was declared. At a later period the prin- 
cipal articles of the Christian faith received a definite 
expression under ecclesiastical authority, and were com- 
Different 
Churches then had their respective creeds, expressing 


prised in short and convenient summaries. 


1 The notion that the formula of 
baptism in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit is not the 
oldest, but that there was a shorter 
form, more anciently employed, in 
the name of Christ alone, has been 
held by some modern authorities. 
[See Neander’s ‘Church History,’ 
vol. i. p. 423; and ‘Hist. of the 
Planting,’ &c. vol. i. p. 222.] But 
this supposition appears to me to 


be destitute of all solid foundation. 
That such expressions as being 
baptized ‘‘in the name of the Lord 
Jesus”’ referred to no other formula 
than that in Matt. xxviii. is evident 
from the circumstances connected 
with those persons who had only 
received the ‘‘baptism of John,” 
and, consequently, had not heard 
of the Holy Spirit. See Acts xix. 
1-5. 


250 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


the same truths in different words, until after the union 


of the Church with the Empire one acknowledged and 


authorized form was at length generally adopted. 


1 As the Apostles authorized no 
summary of Christian doctrine, the 
creeds which afterwards appeared 
grew up by degrees, and additional 
articles were formularized accord- 
ing to the convenience and discre- 
tion of the Churches. Nothing, 
however, that can be called a creed 
appears in any author of the second 
century. In the third some traces 
or elements of creeds are seen ; and 
Cyprian mentions (Ep. 76, ad Mag- 
num), that Novatian professed to 
use the same creed as he himself 
did: eodem symbolo, quo et nos, 
baptizare. Creeds were then taught 
to catechumens in the form of 
questions and answers, which were 
used at their baptism ; only one of 
these, however, is given by Cyp- 
rian: Credis remissionem peccato- 
rum, et vitam ceternam, per sanctam 
ecclesiam. 

A creed, said to have been used 
by Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop 
of Neo-Cesarea (A. Ὁ. 250), is the 
earliest recorded example of sucha 
formula, if its date can be relied 
upon. It does notappear, however, 
until a hundred years later, when 
it is given by his biographer, Gre- 
gory Nyssen ; who relates, in con- 
nection with it, a marvellous story, 
to the effect that Thaumaturgus was 
ordained, against his will, by Phe- 
dimus, Bishop of Amasza, who 
laid his words upon him, in his 
absence, instead of his hands, avri 


χειρὸς éxayertw@l pny opie tov 
λόγον, Aprepwous τῷ Θεῷ τὸν 
σωματικῶς οὐ παρόντα. Gre- 
gory then considered himself or- 
dained ; but being at aloss to know 
what was the true Catholic faith, 
free from heretical errors, the 
Virgin Mary and the Apostle John 
appeared to him as he lay awake at 
night ; when the Apostle, at her 
request, communicated to him this 
Creed, which he immediately wrote 
down and preserved.—Greg. Nyss. 
vol. ili. p. 546. 

In the fourth century a number 
of different creeds are found, those 
of the eastern Churches nearly re- 
sembling the form of the Nicene 
Creed, while that of Rome, and 
other western Churches, was the 
same as our ‘‘ Apostles’ Creed ;” 
the oldest form, however, omits the 
articles, ‘‘ He descended into hell,” 
and ‘‘the life everlasting,” with 
some other words. 

This Roman Creed not having 
been drawn up by any council, or 
having any precise date, gave occa- 
sion to legendary traditions respect- 
ing it. It was called the Apostles’ 
Creed ; then a tradition was invent- 
ed that it had been composed by all 
the Apostles, who met together for 
that purpose : ‘‘ Duodecim Aposto- 
lorum symbolo sancta fides concepta 
est, qui velut periti artifices in 
unum convenientes clavem suo con- 
silio conflaverunt, clavem enim 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 251 


Christian baptism being thus given upon a personal 
profession of repentance or renunciation of sin, of belief 
in Christ as the Saviour, and of a desire and determina- 
tion to live the Christian life,—and being a solemn dedi- 
gation of the baptized believer to God, as revealed in the 
person of Christ, and acting by His Spirit,—its obvious 
significance pointed out the free gift of Christian grace 
and blessing on the part of the Heavenly Father, and 
the full surrender of himself to the divine will and 
guidance on the part of the baptized. And, conse- 
quently, the fact that persons had been baptized is in 
the New Testament often referred to, both as indi- 
cating their privileged position, and as reminding them 
of their serious obligation to live in a manner not un- 
worthy of it. All baptized persons are spoken of as true 
disciples of Christ, until the contrary is known to be the 
case. This, however, even in the New Testament Church, 
is only the judgment of charity,—the judgment of man. 
It does not. appear that the earliest Evangelizers—not 
even the Apostles themselves, except on rare occasions— 
possessed any supernatural discernment of men’s inner 
character, whereby they could infallibly distinguish a 
true from a false disciple, either before or after his 
baptism. They judged of converts as we must judge ; 


tle, as his contribution to the 


quandam ipsum symbolum dixerim, 
per quod reserantur diaboli tenebrz 
ut lux Christi adveniat.”—Am- 
brose, vol. iii, Serm. 38. And 
then, further, it was divided into 
twelve articles, each one of which 
was ascribed to a particular Apos- 


Creed. ‘‘Petrus dixit, credo in 
Deum, patrem omnipotentem ; 
Johannes dixit, creatorem cli et 
terre,” &e. — Augustin, vol. x. 
‘Serm. de Temp.’ 115. 


252 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


at first by a credible profession, and afterwards by their 
life and conduct. Thus the three thousand on the day 
of Pentecost were admitted at once into the Church 
without any further probation, in reliance on the profes- 
sion which they then made; and many other examples 
in the Acts of the Apostles testify to the same practice.’ 
But when baptized and professing Christians proved 
themselves unworthy of their name, they were addressed 
in the plainest words of reproof or condemnation. They 
were told that “they had neither part nor lot in the 
matter ;’ they were denounced as “ enemies of the cross 
of Christ; and as those who were “ drawing back into 


perdition.” 


1 There is no trace in the apostolic 
age of the class of persons, after- 
wards called Catechumens, who were 
kept for a considerable time under 
Christian instruction and discipline 
before they were allowed to be bap- 
tized. Such a period of probation 
was less needed at the first, when 
the abundant effusion of the Spirit 
was at its height, and when the 
stigma which attached to the Chris- 
tian name deterred unworthy and 
wavering professors. But, after- 
wards, when lower motives could 
easily prevail, and especially in 
times when persecution slept, or 
had lost its power, it might well be 
found expedient to test a convert’s 
knowledge and sincerity before his 
admission into the Church. 

Catechumens are first mentioned 
as a distinct class by Tertullian, 
who blames certain heretics for not 


clearly separating them from the 
‘faithful,’ i. 6. the baptized : 
‘Quis catechumenus, quis fidelis, 
incertum est: pariter adeunt, 
pariter audiunt, pariter orant.’’— 
‘De prescript.” ὃ 41. Tertullian 
also calls them ‘‘audientes.”’ 

In Origen’s time the catechumens 
were divided into two classes, the 
audientes or &xpowpmevot, and the 
more advanced, or ‘‘ catechumens 
proper,”’ called also genuflectentes, 
as they were permitted to join in ἃ 
portion of the prayers. Orig. ‘C. 
Cels.’ iii. § 51. 

In the fourth century they were 
divided into three, or sometimes 
four classes, and were subjected to 
a course of discipline for two or 
three years—a discipline marked 
with a large amount of the mystery 
and superstition which abounded in 
the Church system of that century. 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 253 


The efficacy of Christian baptism in the apostolic age, 
or the nature of the religious state and its consequent 
privileges into which the baptized were brought, may 
be fully learned from the various notices respecting 
it, which are scattered throughout the New Testament. 
Baptism is nowhere in the sacred record declared in 
express terms to be the Sacrament or sign of Regenera- 
tion ;* yet there can be no reasonable doubt that such 
words as “the washing of regeneration” (Tit. iii. 5), 
imply this connection between baptism and the new 
spiritual life that is in Christ, as does also the assertion 
that ‘“‘ Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, 
that He might sanctify it by cleansing it with the 
washing of the water by the word” (Eph. v. 26). Besides 
this, the same connection is clearly implied, though in a 
different form of words, in those passages which describe 
the baptized as thereby brought into union with Christ, 
. the fountain and source of the new spiritual life; as we 
find in such texts as “Through faith ye are all the 
children of God in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as 
were baptized into Christ, put on Christ ” * (Gal. iti. 27) ; 
and “buried with Him in your baptism, in which ye 


1 Ido not give here the text, ‘‘Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of 
the Spirit,” because, as mentioned 
before, I do not think it at all 
certain that these words refer to 
baptism. Those who are con- 
vinced that they do will, of course, 
use them in that connection. 

2The force of this, and some 


other verses of a similar kind, is 
partially lost in our English version 
from a mistranslation of the Greek 
tenses ; 6602 εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπ- 
τίδθητε, Χριότὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, 
must mean, ‘‘as many of you as 
were baptized into Christ, put on 
Christ”? at the time, and by the 
act, of your baptism. 


254 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


were also raised up with Him, through your faith in the 
operation of God.” (Col. ii. 12.) While in other pas- 
sages particular blessings which follow from this union, 
and belong to the regenerate state,—such as the 
forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, fellow- 
ship with the Church of Christ,—are spoken of as the 
direct results of the believer’s baptism. Thus we read, 
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, aud ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11. 38) ; “ Arise 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts xxii. 
16) ; “ΒΥ one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” 
(1 Cor. xii. 13). And we find the whole summed by 
St. Peter in one bold assertion, “ That baptism doth save 
us.” (1 Pet. iii. 11.) τ 

And finally, even in what may be called the moral or 
practical application of the subject, in appeals to baptized 
persons to live the life of godliness, the same view of 
baptism is involved; as we see in St. Paul’s forcible 
enquiry, ‘‘ How shall we, who died to sin, live any longer 
therein? know ye not that so many of us as were bap- 
tized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death; 
that, like as Christ was raised from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life’ (Rom. vi. 2). 

If, therefore, those who repent and believe in Jesus are 
declared in Scripture to be by their baptism baptized 
into Christ, to put on Christ, to be buried and raised 
up with Him, to wash away their sins, to have the 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 255 


washing of regeneration, to receive the Holy Spirit, 
and to be saved, there is surely a sound and Scriptural 
sense in which we may speak of “ Baptismal Regenera- 
tion,” and call baptism the Sacrament of the New Birth 
in Christ. - 

But now having shown in what strong terms the New 
Testament speaks of Christian Baptism,—terms which 
some good men scarcely know how to receive as 
applicable to an ordinance of outward action and 
material elements,—it is necessary, in the cause of truth 
and for a right understanding of the subject, to consider 
under what circumstances, and with what qualifications, 
if any, such words were used. It is necessary to ask, 
How, or in what sense, does baptism save us? How 
can it be said to unite us to Christ, wash away our sins, 
and obtain for us those powers and privileges of the 
spiritual life which in Scripture language are connected 
with it? 

And then it may be at once replied that all this 
is affirmed— 

Because Christian Baptism is the visible symbol of the 
invisible operation of the Divine Spirit, who alone is the 
efficient cause and real author of the new life in the 
spirit of man. 

And because his baptism is the outward exhibition of 
a believer’s repentance, whereby he forsakes sin; and of 
his faith, whereby he lays hold on Christ, and on God’s 
promises in Him. 

Hence the ascribing to the baptismal ordinance all 


256 CHRISTIAN DAL TTISAZ., 


that is ascribed to it in Holy Writ, is only a particular 
instance of the general fact that in Scripture language 
_ a single part of a complex action, and even that part 
which is the most obvious to the. senses, is often men- 
tioned for the whole of it; and thus in this case the 
whole of the solemn transaction is designated by the 
external symbol.’ 

Besides this, it should be distinctly marked, first, that 
whatever efficacy is ascribed to baptism as a divinely- 
appointed ordinance, the sacred writers are careful to 
make it plain, that it is by no power or virtue, natural 
or supernatural, in the water and its application, that 
the ascribed effects are produced. For if they assure us 
that “as many as were baptized into Christ, put on 
Christ,” they omit not to declare that it is “through 
faith” that “all are the children of God in Christ Jesus,” 
that it is “by one Spirit” that “we are baptized into one 
body.” It is “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and “by 
the Spirit of our God,” that sinful men “ are washed, 
sanctified, and justified.” The “washing of regenera- 
tion” is “the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” 

And, secondly, it should be distinctly marked that the 
persons, whom their baptism is said to have cleansed 
from sin, to have sanctified and saved, were those who 
gladly received the Gospel word, who confessed their 


1In a similar manner, the whole bread ;’’ and the whole transaction 
ordinance of the other srcrament is in the ordination of ministers is 
expressed by simply naming the termed ‘the imposition of hands.” 
visible action of ‘‘breaking the 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 257 


sins, and who believed in Christ. They were at any rate 
those who, as far as man could see, made an honest pro- 
fession of repentance and faith; who consequently in the 
economy of the apostolic age, as in all subsequent times, 
were spoken of on this hypothesis, and so far as this hypo- 
thesis was realised, as being what they credibly professed 
to be, and who on the ground of such profession were re- 
ceived into the communion of the Church. And thus St. 
Peter in affirming that baptism saves us, immediately adds 
that it is not “the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” 
—the mere application of water to the body,—* but the 
answer of a good conscience towards God ;’ the inward 
state of the baptized corresponding with the outward 
appearance ; the belief of the heart with the profession 
of the lips. Thus, too, whatever the inspired writers 
affirm of the effects of baptism, they take care to make 
‘it plain that the fruits of the Spirit are the only certain 
proof of the Spirit’s presence and exerted power; and 
that no act previously performed, no privileges once 
received, can be allowed as evidence, when these fruits 
are absent from those in whom they ought to appear. 
“As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the 
sons of God.” “He that is born of God doth not com- 
mit sin,’—“ believeth that Jesus is the Christ,”—and 
“overcometh the world.” . 
And what still further shows that it was only as a 
visible symbol of invisible realities, that baptism is said 
to have had any power, is the complete omission in the 
New Testament of everything which could lead to the 
17 


258 CHRISILAN BAPTISM. 


supposition that there was any virtue inherent in the rite 
itself, or the visible element which it employed. In the 
Churches of the Apostles there was no consecration of 
the baptismal water to intimate that some mystical 
power was imparted to it. A pool or stream in any 
place was a sufficient baptistery. Nor was there 
any thought of sacramental grace dependent on the act 
and office of the officiating minister, or of any power in 
him to impart it by his ministrations. The Apostles 
seem to have purposely guarded against all such notions; 
when even on the important occasion of the baptism 
of Cornelius, which formed a distinct epoch in the early 
history of the Church, Peter did not administer the 
ordinance himself; and when Paul informed the Co- 
rinthians that he had “not been sent to baptize, but to 
preach the Gospel,” and considered it a cause of thank- 
fulness that he had himself baptized very few of his 
converts in that city. 

It only remains to be observed that baptism in the 
primitive Church was evidently administered by im- 
mersion of the body in the water,—a mode which added 
to the significance of the rite, and gave a peculiar force 
to some of the allusions to it. But in the absence of all 
commands on the subject, this mode of administration 
cannot justly be considered as essential to the ordinance, 
or a deviation from it as detrimental to its validity. 

And thus on looking at the general bearing of this 
Sacrament upon the religious life of the apostolic times, 
we see that without savouring of formalism, or en- 


ΕΘ BAPTISM. 259 


couraging a vain reliance on the “bodily exercise’ 
of ceremonial acts, it served to impress the minds of 

~ converts with a happy assurance of their union with 
Christ in the covenant of grace ;—to teach them that 
they had not merely received a new creed, but had 
entered upon a new life under the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit; and to remind them continually that they had 
enlisted in Christ’s spiritual army for a holy warfare 
against self and sin, and were to remain His faithful 
soldiers and servants unto their life’s end. 

And the simple grandeur of this view and use of 
Christian baptism, which marked the earliest age, 
reverently honouring the outward act as a divine ap- 
pointment, without allowing it to overshadow, or take 
the place of, the inner spirit of the ordinance, continued 
to the middle of the second century with little alteration ; 
exceptthat even then there appears some slight tendency 
to dwell more strongly upon the outward rite, and to 
speak of it more positively as if it were in itself a direct 
cause of the inward and spiritual blessings sacramentally 
connected with it. 

Thus Ignatius, in his short notice of baptism in his 
Epistle to Polycarp (ὃ 3), connects it immediately with 
the faith, love, and patience of the Christian; putting 
these Christian graces as the component parts, so to 
speak, of the baptism itself. His words are, τὸ βάπτιόμα 
ὑμῶν μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα, ‘nMiGTIS ὡς περικεφαλαία, ἡ ἀγα πη 
ες δόρυ, ἡ ὑπομονὴ ὡς πανοπλία. Where having called 
baptism the Christian’s armour, he enumerates, 1s 


9 5 


260 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


different parts of that armour, his faith, love, and 
patience. 

From Justin Martyr’s account of the administration of 
baptism in his time we learn— 

That there was still no special class of catechumens 
undergoing a long probation; but those who received 
the Christian doctrines, repented of their sins, and pro- 
mised to live the Christian life, were thereupon bap- 
tized. ; 

That the candidates for baptism were taught to pray 
for the forgiveness of their past transgressions, the 
Christians, into whose community they were to be 
admitted, joing with them in these devotions. 

That they were then led to some water, in which they 
were baptized by immersion, without any consecration 
of the element, or any ceremony implying the existence 
of a mystical virtue in it. 

That this baptism was distinctly called their regenera- 
tion. “They are brought,” says Justin, “ where there is 
water, and are regenerated in the same manner as we 
ourselves also were regenerated.” 

That the baptized were considered to have obtained 
the remission of sins and other spiritual blessings in the 
water, because there was invoked over them the name of 
God the Father and Lord of all things, and of Jesus 
Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and of 
the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed beforehand by the pro- 
phets all the things concerning Jesus. 

That this baptism was also called their “illumination,” 


CARIS TIAN BAPTISM. 261 


because those who learned the truths of Christianity 
had their minds thereby enlightened. 

And that the newly-baptized persons were at once 
received into the Christian congregation, and were wel- 
comed with the kiss of peace and brotherhood.’ 

But by the beginning of the third century a decided 
change had taken place both in the views which were 
entertained of this sacrament, and in the manner of its 
administration ;—a change which increased in intensity 
during that century, and in the course of the following 


age advanced so far, that the simple apostolic rite can 


1 Justin. ‘Apolog.’ i. “Odor av 
πεισθῶσι UAL πιότεύωσιν ἀληθῆ 
ταῦτα τὰ UP ἡμῶν διδαόδηό- 
μενα καὶ λεγόμενα εἶναι, HAL 
βιοῦν οὕτως δύναδθαι ὑπι- 
ὄχνῶνται, εὐχεόθαί τε καὶ 
αἰτεῖν νηστεύοντες παρὰ τοῦ 
Θεοὺ τῶν προημαρτημέν ων 
ἄφεσιν διδάσκονται, ἡμῶν 
συν ευχομέν ων καὶ δυννηότευ- 
όντων αὐτοῖς: ἔπειτα ἄγονται 
ὑφ᾽ ἡμὼν ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστὶ, nai 
τρόπον ἀναγεννήσεως, ὃν Hai 
ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἀνεγεννήθημεν, 
ἀναγεννῶνται, ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος 
yap tov Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων παὲ 
δεόπότου Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Ξ: ωτῆ- 
ρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ 
Πνεύματος ἁγίου, τὸ ἐν τῷ 
ὕδατι τότε λουτρὸν ποιοῦνται. 
—§ 79. : 

Again, Καλεῖται δὲ τοῦτο τὸ 
λουτρὸν φωτιόμὸς, ὡς φωτιζο- 
“μένων τὴν διάνοιαν τῶν ταῦ- 
Ta μανθανόντων. nai ἐπ᾽ 
ὀνόματος δὲ Ἰηδοῦ Χριστοῦ 


τοὺ ὁταυρωθέντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου 
Πιλάτου, καὶ ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος 
Πνεύματος ἁγίου, ὅ διὰ τῶν 
προφητῶν προεπήρυξε τὰ κατὰ 
τὸν Ἰηδοῦν πάντα, ὁ φωτιζό- 
μενος λούεται.---ὃ 80. 

And, Ἡμεῖς δὲ μετὰ τὸ οὕτως 
AovGat τὸν πεπειόμένον παὲ 
δσυγπκατατεθεμένον ἐπὶ τους 
λεγομένους αδελφους ἄγομεν, 
ἔνθα συνηγμένοι εἰσί ποιν οἷς 
εὐχὰς ποιηδόμενοι ὑπέρτε 
ἑαυτῶν καὶ TOD φωτιφθέντοϑσ. 
. . AAAHAOVS φιλήματι ἀσπαζό- 
μεθα παυδάμενοι τῶν εὐχῶν. 
—§ 85. 

The term ‘‘enlightened,’”’ or 
‘‘ illuminated,” as applied to the 
baptized, scems to be so far of apos- 
tolic authority, that it is used in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews of those 
who had become Christians, though 
their baptism is not there expressly 
mentioned : ἅπαξ pwri6bevras— 
vi. 4; ἐν αἷς pwri6be vres—x. 32. 


262 CHORISITAN BAP LISM, 


scarcely be recognized in the elaborate ceremonial which 
then prevailed, and which more resembled the practices 
observed in heathen mysteries, than a hallowed ordi- © 
nance in the Christian Church. 

During this period, the Catechumenate was estab- 
lished as a distinct and acknowledged order in the 
Christian economy, with its several ranks or subdivi- 
sions; and candidates were introduced into it with a 
religious ceremony, which was said to make them Chris- 
tians, although they had not yet been baptized, and had 
made no profession of the Christian faith. 

In this order they usually continued for two years, 
or more,—passing through several stages of probationary 
discipline with numerous symbolical rites,—and receiving 
successive communications of Christian doctrines, gradu- 
ally and somewhat mysteriously imparted to them. 

Before their baptism, the candidates were anointed 
with a holy oil, which had been consecrated by a bishop, 
and which was supposed to have thereby had a super- 
natural power communicated to it to act as an exorcism, 
and to expel the evil spirit from the soul.’ 


1 Catechumens were admitted by —Can. 39. And, again, with 


imposition of hands, the sign of the 
cross, and prayers; and this was 
said to make them Christians, though 
only in an inferior sense. Thus, 
the Council of Eliberis (4. p. 305) 
directed that, ““ Gentiles si in infir- 
mitate desideraverint sibi manum 
imponi, si fuerit eorum ex aliqua 
parte vita honesta, placuit iis 
manum imponi et fiert Christianos.” 


reference to a catechumen who 
might have indefinitely delayed his 
baptism, ‘“‘Si eum de clero quis- ὁ 
quam cognoverit esse Christianum.” 
—Can. 65. And so, also, the 
Council of Constantinople (a. D. 
381), speaking of the reception of 
heretics into the Church, says, ΤΡ 
πρώτην ἡμέραν ποιοῦμεν 
αὐτοὺς Χριστιάνους τὴν δὲ 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 263 


The baptism itself was performed with a dramatic 
ceremonial, made as imposing as possible, and every 
And the 


immersion took place in a baptistery, where the water 


action invested with an esoteric meaning. 


was solemnly consecrated by calling upon the Divine 
Spirit to descend into it, and by pouring upon it in the 
form of a cross some of the holy ointment, which like 
the anointing oil had received a spirit-imparting virtue 
from a bishop’s hands. And the people were then taught 
that an actual objective change was thus wrought in the 
water itself—a change so distinctly acknowledged as to 


be called by the name of “ transelementation,”' giving to 


δευτέραν ατηχουμένους.--- 
Can. 7. 

After their admission, the cate- 
chumens were disciplined by exer- 
cises of fasting, abstinence, confes- 
sion, and penitence. They were 
taught the words of some creed, 
and of the Lord’s Prayer, and the 
answers which they were to make 
at their baptism. 

They had performed upon them 
the symbolical ceremonies of veil- 
ing the head, breathing into the 
nostrils, touching the ears, signing 
with the cross, giving them salt to 
taste, and, lastly and especially, 
the anointing of the whole body 
with the holy oil, in order to drive 
out demons. 

This anointing is not mentioned 
by Tertullian ; and probably was 
not used in his time; but Cyril of 
Jerusalem (a. D. 350) describes it, 
and says that this holy oil was pos- 


sessed of such power that it not 
only destroyed all traces of sins, 
but also drove out all the unseen 
powers of the evil one: Ezra 
ἀποδυθέντες ἐλαίῳ ἡἠλείφεσθε 
ἐπορκιόστῷ an ἄκρων τριχῶν 
EWS τῶν κάτω... .. τὸ ἐπορ- 
ULGTOV τοῦτο ἔλαιον ἐπιελήσει 
τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ εὐχῇ δύναμιν 
τηλικαύτην λαμβάνει, ὥστε 
οἱ μόνον καῖον ta ἴχνη τῶν 
ἁμαρτημάτων ἀποπαθαίρει, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσας ἀοράτους τοῦ 
πονήρου ἐπκδιώπειν TAS δυνά- 
Μμειξ.---- Catech. Mystag.’ ii. 3. 

Just before they were baptized, 
they stood with outstretched hands 
in the porch of the church, and, 
turning to the west, renounced the 
devil and his works. 

1The consecration of the bap- 
tismal water. 

Tertullian says, ‘‘ Aqua sacra- 
mentum sanctificationis conse- 


264 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


it a sanctifying power that by its own inherent efficacy 
it might wash away the sins of the baptized. 

The due effect of the baptismal rite was further 
represented as depending upon the person who per- 
formed it. The visible orthodox Church, concentrated 
in its respective bishops, was the sole depository of 
spiritual life and blessing: and its ministers were priests 
possessed, as its delegates, of a sacerdotal power, and 
alone enabled thereby to confer divine grace through 


the medium of the sacraments.’ 


quuntur, invocato Deo, supervenit 
enim statim Spiritus de coelis et aquis 
superest, sanctificans eas de semet 
ipso ; et ita sanctificate vim sancti- 
ficandi combibunt.”’—‘ De Bapt.’ 4. 

A form for this consecration is 
given in the ‘Constit. Apostol.’ : 
Κάτιδε ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ a&yia- 
ὅον τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦτο, δὸς δὲ 
χάριν καὶ δύναμιν (give it grace 
and power) ὥστε τὸν βαπτιζό- 
μενον κατ᾽ ἐντολὴν τοῦ Χρι- 
ὅτοῦ Gov, αὐτῷ συσταυρωθὴ- 
γαῖ, καὶ συναποθανεῖν, παὲ 
δσυνταφῆναι, καὶ CAVAVACTH- 
vat, εἰς viobegiay.—vii. 44. 

The pouring of the ointment on 
the water in the form of a cross is 
mentioned by Dionysius (about the 
fourth century): 410 καὶ ἡ τοῦ 
βαπτίόματος χάρις τελειοῦται 
61a. τοῦ μύρου δταυροειδως 
ἐπιχεομένου τῷ βαπτιστηρίῳ 
παρὰ τοῦ Ἱεράρχου.--- Eccles. 
Hierarch.’ iv. 10. 

The inherent power of the water 
thus consecrated to wash away sin 


is distinctly expressed in the 
above quotations from Tertullian, 
and the ‘Constitutiones Aposto- 
lice.’ Cyprian uses similar lan- 
guage : ‘‘ Oportet mundari et sancti- 
ficari aquam prius a sacerdote, ut 
possit baptismo suo peccata hominis, 
qui baptizatur, abluere.’’—Epist. 70 
ad Janum. 

The transelementation of the 
water is affirmed by Cyril of Alex- 
andria (A. D 410): 4ia τῆς τοῦ 
Πνεύματος ἐνεργ etas τὸ atobn- 
τὸν ὅδωρ πρὸς θείαν τινὰ καὶ 
ἀπόρρητον μεταστοιχειοῦ- 
ται δύναμιν, ayiater τε 
λοιπὸν τοὺς ἐν οἷς ἂν γένοιτο. 
—‘In Johann.’ iii. 5. 

1That a visible orthodox church, 
in communion with its regular 
bishop, alone possessed, and could 
through its ministers impart, spi- 
ritual grace in baptism, is distinct- 
ly declared and dwelt.upon by Cy- 
prian in his contests with Nova- 
tian and his followers ; and also on 
the question about the rebaptiza- 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 265 


Thus baptism, throughout its whole ceremonial, wore 
the appearance of an initiation into some of those secret 
mysteries, which were familiar to the pagan mind; nor 
was such an idea discouraged by the greatest teachers of 
The highest spiritual blessmgs were supposed 
to be conferred not only ex opere operato by the outward 
rite, but even by the inherent virtue of the water, the 


And 


being regarded on the one hand as absolutely necessary 


the time. 


power of the priest, and the gift of the Church. 


for the salvation of all, and on the other hand as a com- 
plete deliverance from, and obliteration of, all past sins, 
which could never afterwards be so effectually obtained, 
the whole ordinance was surrounded with an atmosphere 
of awe and superstitions reverence, encouraging the 
notion in some minds that they might come to it as a 
species of magic rites which could annihilate sin ; and in 


others that it was better to defer their baptism as long 


tion of heretics. Thus, ‘‘Quum 
dicunt, Credis remissionem pecca- 
torum et vitam sternam per sanc- 
lam ecclesiam, mentiuntur in in- 
terrogatione, quando non habeant 
sanctam ecclesiam. Tune deinde 
quum voce sua ipsi confitentur 
remissionem peccatorum non dart 
nisi per sanctam ecclesiam posse, 
quam non habent, ostendunt re- 
mitti illic peccata non posse.”’— 
Epist. 76, ad Magnum. Against 
the baptism of the Novationists. 
And on the necessity of not 
acknowledging heretical baptism, 
‘¢ Baptizandus est ut ovis fiat quia 
una est aqua in LEcclesia sancta, 


que oves faciat.’’—Ep. 71. 

So far, indeed, does Cyprian 
carry his‘‘ High Churchism’”’—put- 
ting, in fact, his own visible com- 
munity in the place of Christ him- 
self,—that, notwithstanding the 
high estimation in which mar- 
tyrdom was then held, as a merit 
which covered all other defects and 
sins, he affirms that those who died 
for the name of Christ were not 
at all benefited by it, unless they 
were in full communion with the 
orthodox Church, and that their 
death was no martyrdom at all. 
««An secum esse Christum quum 
collecti fuerint opinantur, qui extra 


566 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


as possible, lest by subsequent sins its blessed. effects 


might be irrevocably lost.’ 


The miserable demoralisation, produced by such doc- 


trines and their natural consequences, scarcely needs to 


be pointed out. 


These sad departures from apostolic practice are said 


to have arisen from the circumstance that the Christian 


sacraments and other religious services being originally 


so few and simple, with no imposing ceremonies, sacri- 


Christi ecclesiam colliguntur. Tales 
etiam si occisi in confessione nominis 
fuerint, macula ista nec sanguine 
aplnte Ὁ ss". esse Martyr non 
potest, qui in ecclesia non est.””— 
Cyp. ‘de Unit. Eccles.’ 

The general opinion on this sub- 
ject in the following century may 
be summed up in one line of 
Pacian’s (a. ἢ. 370), ‘‘Sic generat 
Christus in ecclesia per suos sacer- 
dotes.’’—‘Serm. de Bapt.’ 

1«°The custom, general as it 
became, of deferring baptism to the 
last hour, a custom so utterly 
opposed to the practice of the apos- 
tolic age, whence did it arise, but 
from the doctrine of the Church at 
the time? For the people esti- 
mating, if we may so speak, their 
chances of heaven, all things con- 
sidered, concluded, and not un- 
reasonably, that although in doing 
so they incurred the fearful risk of 
meeting death suddenly, or where 
the ‘regenerating water’ could 
not be obtained; yet inasmuch as 
a death-bed initiation, if it could 
but be had, would cover all defects; 


and, moreover, as sin after baptism 
could be expiated, if at all, only in 
the precarious and painful methods 
of penance, which expiatory process 
itself might be cut short by death, 
having no remedy whatever;—the 
safer course, though a perilous one, 
was to hold in reserve to the last, 
and trusting to good fortune, that 
one remedy, concerning the efficacy 
of which no doubt could be enter- 
tained. This course, moreover, 
had a further recommendation inci- 
dentally attached to it, namely, 
that with the sovereign remedy still 
untouched and at hand, a man 
might meantime live as he pleased; 
only let him be so fortunate at the 
last as to have a kind priest within 
call, and all would be right! 

‘‘In vain the great preachers of 
theNicene age spent their eloquence 
in denouncing this impiety. Men 
coolly made their calculations, and 
chose to abide by what they felt 
to be their better chance.’”’—‘ An- 
cient Christianity’ (by Isaac Taylor) 
p. 247. 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 267 


fices, and temples, the Christian teachers endeavoured to 
set them off by magnificent names,—by involving them 
in mystery,—and by adding to them as large a number 
of symbolical rites as possible, lest they should be de- 
spised for their simplicity and plainness ; for which reason 
also many things were hidden at first from the cate- 
chumens, in order to increase their veneration by the 
concealment, and to make even their curiosity a spur to 
their religion... 

This doubtless in some cases was the truth; but the 
causes of the change must be traced to a deeper source, 
and to principles of a wider operation. Arising out of 
the midst of Judaism and surrounded by pagan religions, 
Christianity was continually exposed to evil influences 
from them both. The former was constantly striving, as 
long as it had any power or life, to thrust or insinuate 
its observances into the Church, notwithstanding the 
unanimous sentence of the Apostles at Jerusalem. The 
latter was everywhere present, and while its grosser 
abominations were repudiated, some feelings and senti- 
ments, which it produced or fostered, were not without 
their influence upon the Christian mind. 

Now while Christianity, as established by the Apostles, 
was essentially a religion of the heart and spirit, exerting 
its. power within, and acting from within so far as any 
outward display was needed ;—popular Judaism on the 
contrary, and all the denominations of paganism, were 
religions of outward exhibition, appealing to the bodily 
senses, and acting from without upon the inner man, so 


268 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


far as they acted inwardly at all. And then, as what is 
ealled the religious instinct in man tends naturally to 
make religion a thing of visible and sensuous forms ;— 
neither Jewish nor Gentile converts could at once eman- 
cipate their minds from this inveterate tendency, but 
carried a portion of it with them into the Christian body, 
to spread and operate there ; while the modes of thought 
outside the Church, if they had any influence at all, must 
have conduced to the same effect. After the departure 
of the Apostles, and when Christianity was extended ᾿ 
more and more throughout the Roman Empire, this evil 
leaven spread itself more widely and with less restraint, 
although the vitality of the sound apostolic doctrine 
held out against it for a considerable time. 

Then too, the rise and growth of the Gnostic phi- 
losophy, to which we have traced the pernicious and 
ungodly asceticism which so greatly prevailed in the 
Church, operated also on another side in strengthening 
these Jewish and pagan influences. For if Gnosticism 
by its notion that sin was especially connected with 
matter and animal life, led to the exaltation of the facti- 
tious holiness of bodily macerations,—its principles 
equally encouraged a belief that sin might be expelled 
by bodily appliances, and justified an exaggerated esti- 
mate of all material and palpable ceremonies. And 
these Gnostic principles, infecting as they did more or 
less perceptibly the heads and leaders of the Church,! 


1«*The ancient Church, coming aid of any experience, into contact 
as it did, suddenly and without the with the most prodigious evils, at 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 269 


made them ready to encourage rather than to oppose 
the growing errors of the popular theology. 

From these causes there was born and developed in 
the Christian body “an undue estimation of externals.” 
The conception of the Church, and of everything belong- 
ing to it, was thrown outwards. The whole current of 
ecclesiastial feeling, thought, and expression set strongly 
in the same direction; and the whole system was modi- 
fied accordingly. : 

Hence the visible Church was advanced to an emi- 
nence not its own, and was almost deified. From it the 
communion of the Holy Spirit with all his gifts was 
declared to be first derived, and through its ministrations 
alone to be imparted to men. 

Hence, instead of a Christian Ministry of the apostolic 
type and age, a priesthood after the Jewish or heathen 


and with a violent revulsion it dis- 
torted its own principles of virtue 


once imparted an impulse, and 
admitted animpulse. . . Did Chris- 


tianity encounter the rigid, punc- 
tilious, and self-righteous pietism 
of the Jews? In the collision the 
Judaism of those who of the He- 
brew race embraced the Gospel 
gave way to some extent, and was 
Christianised ; and, in return, 
Christianity was Judaised. Or did 
it meet the vain philosophy and 
platonism of the speculative Greek 
and Gnostic? It did so; and pla- 
tonism and Christianity thencefor- 
ward were intimately commingled. 
Did it impinge upon human soci. 
ety, then debauched in a most 
extraordinary degree? It did so; 


in an equally extreme degree. 
Finally, did the religion of the 
New Testament, rational, spiritual, 
pure, confront the degrading su- 
perstitions of the pagan world? 
It did so, and on this ground, 
while it bore a clear testimony 
against the doctrine and the 
flagitious practice of polytheism, 
yet it merged itself in the bound- 
less superstition of the times asa 
system of fear, spiritual servitude, 
formality, scrupulosity, visible 
magnificence of worship, mystery, 
artifice, and juggle.’’— ‘Ancient 
Christianity,’ p. 130. 


270 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


model was set up, and sacerdotal powers and functions ~ 
were ascribed to it. 

Hence the beautifully simple and spiritual ordinances 
of the sacraments were similarly dealt with; and bap- 
tism loaded with imposing ceremonies, was represented 
as having in its visible form and material elements a 
supernatural power imparted to them by the Church for 
regenerating the believer, and as being absolutely neces- 
sary for such regeneration. 


So far the sacrament of baptism has been considered in 
connection “ with a conscious entrance on Christian com- 
munion, —as administered therefore only to adults ; but it 
is now necessary to notice it also with reference to infants. 

For myself I desire to express my entire assent to the 
words of our twenty-seventh Article, “The baptism of 
young children is in any wise to be retained in the 
Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” 
But, at the same time, notwithstanding all that has been 
written by learned men upon this subject, it remains in- 
disputable that infant-baptism is not mentioned in the 
New Testament. No instance of it is recorded there ;— 
no allusion is made to its effects ;—no directions are 
given for its administration. 

However reasonably we may be convinced that we 
find in the Christian Scriptures “the fundamental idea 
from which infant-baptism was afterwards developed,” 
and by which it may now be justified; it ought to be 
distinctly acknowledged that it is not an apostolic — 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 271 


ordinance. Like modern Episcopacy, it is an ecclesias- 
tical institution legitimately deduced by Church authority 
from apostolic principles, but not apostolic in its actual 
existence. 

There is no trace of it until the last part of the second 
century, when arpassage is found in Irenzeus, which may 
possibly—and only possibly—refer to it. Nor is it any- 
where distinctly mentioned before the time of Tertullian, 
who, while he testifies to the practice, was himself rather 
opposed to it... As an established order of the Church, 
therefore, it belongs to the third century, when its use, 
and the mode of its administration, and the whole theory 
of it as a Christian ceremony, were necessarily moulded 


by the baptismal theology of the time. 


A circumstance 


which ought to be distinctly kept in view in every con- 


sideration of the subject. 


The belief that baptism was absolutely necessary for 


1 Notwithstanding such valuable 
and learned works as ‘Wall on 
Infant Baptism,’ ‘ Hammond’s De- 
fence of Infant Baptism,’ and 
others, the assertion of Suicer re- 
mains unrefuted, as far as any 
direct historical evidence is con- 
eerned, when he says, ‘‘ Primis 
duobus szeculis nemo baptismum 
accipiebat, nisi qui in fide in- 
gstructus et doctrina Christiana 
imbutus testari posset se credere, 
propter illa verba, Qui crediderit 
et baptizatus fuerit.”’ 

The passages put forward by 
Bingham and others from Clemens 


Romanus, Hermz Pastor, Justin 
Martyr, and the ‘Author of the 
Recognitions,” say nothing about 
infant-baptism, though some of 
them testify to the necessity of 
baptism in general. 

The passage from Irenzeus re- 
ferred to is, ‘‘*Omnes enim 
(Christus) venit per semet ipsum 
salvare ; omnes, inquam, qui per 
eum renascuntur in Deum, in- 
fantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et 
juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per 
omnem venit «etatem, et infantibus 
infans factus, sanctificans infantes ; 
et parvulis- paryulus, sanctificans 


252 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


all ;* and that it conferred spiritual life by the mherent 
virtue of its material elements, and by the administra- 


hanc ipsam habentes xtatem, et 
exemplum illis pietatis effectus.” 
—ii. 22, 4.—a passage in which 
infant-baptism is not mentioned, 
and by no means necessarily im- 
plied. 

1 The belief in the absolute neces- 
sity of water baptism appears first 
in Tertullian, who also gives us the 
first distinct evidence of the prac- 
tice of administering it to infants. 
His assertions, however, are not so 
definite and strong as are found at 
later periods. ‘‘Lex enim tin- 
gendi imposita est et forma pre- 
scripta ; Ite, inquit, docete natio- 
nes tingentes eas in nomen Patris, 
et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Huic 
legi collata definitio illa, Nisi quis 
renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu 
non intrabit in regnum celorum, 
obstrinait fidem ad baptismi necessi- 
tatem.’’—Tert. ‘de Bapt.’ 13. 

When this question of the neces- 
sity of baptism had connected 
itself expressly with the case of 
infants, a difference of opinion is 
at first observable respecting those 
who died unbaptized, which in 
process of time settled down into 
a most unqualified assertion of 
their hopeless condition. Thus 
Gregory Nazianzen thought that 
they were in an intermediate state, 
neither condemned nor blessed : 
Τοὺς δὲ μήτε δοξασθήδεσθαι 
μήτε πολασθηήδεόθαι παρὰ τοῦ 
δικαίου UPITOD, ὡς ἀδφραγί- 
ὅτους μὲν ἀπονήρους δὲ, ἀλλὰ 


παθόντας μᾶλλον τὴν ζημίαν 
2 Spaoavras.—Orat. 40. 

But Augustin declares that they 
must be condemned, though with 
the lightest condemnation. ‘‘Po- 
test proinde recte dici parvulos 
sine baptisimo de corpore exeuntes 
in damnatione omnium mitissima 
futuros. Multum autem et fallitur, 
qui eos in damnatione predicat 
non futuros, dicente Apostolo, ju- 
dicium ex uno delicto in condem- 
nationem.’’—‘ De Peccat. Merit. et 
Remiss.’ i. 16. 

So the author whose writings are 
subjoined to those of Augustin, 
‘¢Nos dicimus eos [infantes] aliter 
salutem et vitam sternam non 


habituros, nisi baptizentur in 
Christo.’”’ Serm. 14, de Verb. 
Apost. 


But Fulgentius, who lived a 
hundred years later than Augustin, 
asserts most positively of all men, 
‘‘Firmissime tene et nullatenus 
dubites, exceptis illis qui pro 
nomine Christi suo sanguine bap- 
tizantur nullum hominem acceptu- 
rum vitam ceternam, qui non hic a 
malis suis fuerit per pcenitentiam, 
fidemque conversus, et per sacra- 
mentum fidei et poenitentiz, id est 
per baptismum liberatus. Parvu- 
lis Vero. 5 essis : 
sacramentum fidei et pcenitentiz, 
quamdiu rationis ztas eorum capax 
esse non potest, sufficere ad salu- 
tem.’’—‘ De fide ad Petrum,’ 30. 


CHRISTIAN BAP TISAL 273 


tion of a priest, led the Church to the conclusion, that 
infant-baptism was not merely justifiable, but altogether 
necessary ; and also that its force and efficacy were ex- 
actly the sarae in the unconscious infant as in the believing 
man. This was nothing more than a simple and logical 
? consequence of such an idea of this sacrament, and the 
infant having been placed on the same standing-ground 
as the adult, it was then unfortunately thought requisite 
to use, as far as possible, the same formula for both; 
and thus, as the adult by his own mouth professed the 
faith which he had,—the infant was by the mouth of 
another to profess the faith which he had not. Hence 
the introduction of baptismal sponsors to answer in the 
infant’s stead ;—an institution of very questionable pro- 
priety at the best, and one which at a later time was 
productive of superstitions, with which the Church of the 
Nicene period is certainly not chargeable,—though the 
germ of error was planted then, which has not altogether 
ceased to bear fruit, even amongst ourselves. 
To admit infants to Christian baptism, as the children 
of believing parents, may be a wholesome development 
of Scripture truth and apostolic teaching ; but it is quite 
a different thing, and by no means follows as a legiti- 
mate consequence, that such baptism should be exactly 
the same as in the adult believer. Still less was it wise 
or right to endeavour by an ecclesiastical fiction to ex- 
hibit an identity which did not exist, in such essentially 
different cases. 
That even in very early times good men felt the ob- 
18 


274 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


jections which may be justly made to the sponsorial 
affirmations in infant-baptism,—and that no satisfactory 
answers could be given to such objections,—is made 
evident by the correspondence which took place between 
Boniface, Bishop of Rome, and Augustin on this subject ; 
and by the miserable inconclusiveness of the only solu- 
tions which the latter could give of the difficulties which 
the former had presented to him.'! 
therefore that the practice has been a stumbling-block, 


It is no wonder 


and a cause of disunion in the Church, even to the 


1In Augustin’s time the sponsors 
were asked ‘‘ Does this child be- 
lieve in God? Does he turn to 
God?” &c., and they answered, 
‘*He does.” Upon which the 
worthy Bishop of Rome enquires, 
‘*How can it be said with truth 
that an infant believes, and repents, 
&c., when he has no thought or 
sense sbout such things?’ And 
the only answer that Augustin gives 
himis, ‘‘That the infant is said to 
believe, because he receives the 
sacrament of faith and conversion. 
As the sacrament of the body of 
Christ is in a certain manner called 
His body, so the sacrament of faith 
is called faith ; and he who has this 
sacrament, therefore, has faith; and 
consequently, an infant coming to 
be baptized may be said to have 
faith or to believe, because these 
questions and answers are a part of 
the celebration of the sacrament 
of faith.” Sicut ergo secundum 
quendam modum _ sacramentum 
corporis Christi corpus Christi est, 


et sacramentum sanguinis Christi 
sanguis Christi est ; ita sacramen- 
tum fidei fidesest. Nihil est autem 
aliud credere, quam fidem habere. 
Ac per hoc quum respondetur par- 
vulus credere, qui fidei nondum 
habet affectum, respondetur fidem 
habere propter fidei sacramentum, 
et convertere se ad Deum propter 
conversionis sacramentum, quia et 
ipsa responsio ad celebrationem 
pertinet sacramenti.’”’—Epist. 23 
ad Bonifacium. 

Can anything be imagined more 
futile than such an explanation ?— 
baptism is the sacrament of faith ; 
therefore, he who has this sacra- 
ment has faith ; therefore, an in- 
fant brought to be baptized may be 
said to have faith, before the baptism 
has been administered, because these 
questions and answers are a part of 
the administration ! 

This extreme absurdity is, at any 
rate, avoided in our baptismal ser- 
vice. 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 275 


present day. Had our early Reformers been longer 
spared, with their earnest love of Scripture truth, and 
their candour and courage in setting forth the successive 
degrees of light which they themselves obtained, it may 
well be believed that in this, and in some other respects, 
our baptismal service would not have been left by them 
exactly as they did leave it. But since their day none 
like them have arisen in our Church ; and at the present 
time no one in authority seems to venture even to look 
such questions in the face. 


There remains still one important particular to be 
noticed in the subject of infant-baptism, connected by 
different points of contact and of interest with apostolic 
practice, with the usages of the third and following 
centuries, and with those of our own Church. 

Tt is evident from the New Testament that the Apostles 
had the power of conferring “ spiritual gifts,” (yapicuara) 
ly the solemn imposition of hands and by prayer upon 
those who by baptism had been received into their com- 
munion. It is also evident that these spiritual gifts 
thus conferred were not personal graces requisite for the 
baptized believer’s individual standing in Christ, or for 
his own faith and holiness of living; but were extra- 
ordinary powers granted for the general benefit and 
edification of the Christian community. And since none 
but the Apostles were able to bestow these gifts, they 
ceased to be given, when they departed from the world ; 
and consequently the ceremonial, which they used in this 


276 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


connection, was not to be continued as a permanent 
ordinance in the Church. 

When, however, at the beginning of the third century 
Episcopal authority had been strongly developed in the 
Church system, and, when not long after, bishops called 
themselves successors of the Apostles, and inheritors of 
their spiritual authority, they professed to have, like 
them, the power of imparting the Holy Spirit—though 
the gifts which followed upon the Apostles’ imposition 
of hands, did not follow upon theirs. The exercise of 
this supposed power by the bishops, which was called 
affixing a “seal,” or a “perfecting” of the baptized, and 
at a later period, “confirmation,” was said to be after 
the example of the Apostles; but in reality in its use 
and intention it differed widely from the apostolic 
practice. Confirmation at this period was looked upon 
as a necessary adjunct to baptism, which, without this 


addition, was not considered perfect or complete. 


1 Immediately after the actual 
baptism followed the ceremony of 
anointing the baptized with the 
holy ointment or χρίόμα, in order 
to impart the Holy Spirit. The 
practice was in use as early as the 
time of Tertullian, who says, ‘‘ Non 
quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum 
consequamur; sed in aqua emun- 
dati sub Angelo (by the priest), 
Spiritui Sancto preparamur.”’ And, 
‘«Eixinde egressi de lavacro perun- 
gimur benedicta unctione.” And 
‘‘Dehinec manus imponitur per 
benedictionem advocans et invi- 


tans Spiritum Sanctum.’—‘ De 
Bapt.’—§§ 4, 7, 8. 

Cyril of Jerusalem describes the 
power of this ointment : rd ἅγιον 
τοῦτο μύρον οὐκέτι ψιλὸν, 
οὐδ᾽ GS ἂν εἴποι τις KOLVOY, 
alla Χριστοῦ χαάριόμα, παὲ 
Πνευματος-τοῦ ἁγίου παρου- 
δία τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος ἐνερ- 
γετικὸν γενόμενον .--- Catech. 
Mystag.’ iii. 3. 

Pacian (A. D. 370) says expressly, 
that the baptismal water washes 
away sin, and the chrism gives the 
Holy Spirit; and so the regenera- 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 277 


In accordance with the materialistic sentiments then 
prevalent in the Church, a sacred ointment, or Chrism, 
consecrated by a bishop, and thus (as it was believed), 
changed in its nature, and made able to impart the 
Divine Spirit, was applied, with the sign of the cross 
and imposition of hands to the baptized person immedi- 
ately after his immersion if a bishop was present, by 
whom alone in ordinary cases this ceremony was to be 
performed. And thus, while the special virtue of the 
water was to wash away sins, the Chrism, with its equally 
marvellous efficacy, was to give the Holy Spirit; and 
then alone was the regeneration of the baptized com- 
pleted, or at least so completed as to fit him for living 
the Christian life. 

Such was the “confirmation” used in the third and 
fourth centuries ;—an unauthorized and perverted appli- 
cation of an apostolic practice to an unapostolic purpose, 
and another example of the prevalent tendency to con- 
vert the Church into an outward system of mediation, 
and to confound together in a corrupt union the Old and 
New Testament dispensations. 

Confirmation in the modern sense, as used’ in the 


tion is complete: ‘‘ Hee compleri 
alias nequent,nisi lavacri, et chris- 
matis, et antistitis, sacramento. 
Lavacro enim peccata purgantur, 
chrismate Sanctus Spiritus super- 
infunditur; utraque vero ista manu 
et ore antistitis impetramus ; atque 
ita totus homo renascitur et renova- 
tar in Christo.’’—‘Serm. de Bapt.’ 
In the Church of Rome, at the 


end of the fourth century, a pres- 
byter was allowed to perform apart 
of the chrismation ; thus, ‘‘ Pres- 
byteris chrismate baptizatos ungere 
licet, sed quod ab episcopo fuerit 
consecratum ; non tamen frontem 
ex eodem oleo signare, quod solis 
episcopis debetur quum tradunt Spir- 
itum Sanctum Paracletum.’’—Inno- 
cent I. Epist. 1. ad Decent. ὃ 3. 


278 CHRISTIAN ΘΟ TISH. 


Church of England, is a very good and wholesome rite — 
for those who have been baptized in their infancy, in 
order that they may solemnly make a personal and 
public profession of their Christian faith. And as infant 
baptism must necessarily be to a certain extent incom- 
plete, such confirmation may well be called with Hooker, 
But it is not “after the 


example of the Apostles,’ who used no ceremony at all 


« A sacramental Complement.” 


corresponding with it. Neither is it after the example 
of the Nicene Church above referred to; for then there 
was no profession made at the confirmation, either of 
adults or of infants, to whom it was alike applied, as an 
essential part of the baptismal ordinance. The direction 
in.our rubric about the confirmation of those who have 
been baptized when “of riper years” was probably 
given from an erroneous supposition that we were 
following the practice of the early times; but it is quite 
inconsistent with the Anglican idea of confirmation. 
“The Order of Confirmation” in our Prayer-book is 
obviously intended for those who were baptized in their 
infancy; and there is no provision made for the confir- 
mation of any others.’ 


1 In the two Prayer-books of the 


reign of Edward VI., and in the 
Prayer-book which was issued at 
the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign 
(A. D. 1559), a short preface was 
prefixed to the order of confir- 
mation, containing the following 
sentence : ‘‘ Secondly, for as much 
as confirmation is ministered to 
them that be baptized, that by im- 


position of hands and prayer they 


may receive strength and defence 
against all temptations to sin, and 
the assaults of the world and the 
devil ; it is most meet to be minis- 
tered when children come to that 
age, that partly by the frailty of 
their own flesh, partly by the as- 
saults of the world-and the devil, 
they begin to be in danger to fall 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 279 


But to return for a few moments to the confirmation 
of the early Church ;—the Christian, by the application 
of the sacred ointment, being thus fully baptized, and 
strengthened, as he was taught to believe, with all 
spiritual grace and power, was clothed in white garments, 
delivered to him sometimes with a solemn charge ;—he 
stood before the “altar” with a lighted taper in his 
hand ;—the kiss of peace was given to him ;—he tasted 
milk and honey in token of his new birth ;—he said the 
Lord’s prayer standing upright, as being now a free 
man, and a child of God ;—and he was at once admitted 
to the Lord’s Supper, which was commonly administered 
to newly baptized infants, as well as to those of riper 
years. 

On reviewing the whole course of the baptismal cere- 
monial of that time, from the probationary discipline of 
the catechumen to his admission to the Lord’s Table, it 
cannot be denied that this elaborate drama may have — 
been very solemnly impressive. But how immeasurably 
different was it all from the baptism of the apostolic 
Church! . 

It may have been that the times and the people, with 
whom the Church then had to deal, demanded a some- 
what different treatment in external things from that of 


into sundry kinds of sin.” This the whole of this preface was omit- 
rubric indicates that the framers of ted ina. p. 1578; and nothing at 
those Anglican liturgies designed all corresponding with the above- 
to retain to a certain extent the quoted sentence appears in our 
idea of confirmation which pre- Prayer-book now. 

vailed at the Nicene period. But 


280 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


the apostolic period. It may have been that, when the 
high spiritual elevation and extraordinary gifts of the 
earliest time had passed away, a larger recourse to ma- 
terial and esthetic appliances, for stimulating a needful 
energy in the Christian cause and life, was not altogether 
unreasonable. It may have been that a lower civiliza- 
tion in some parts of the Roman Empire required to be 
met with more striking appeals to the bodily senses and 
lower self-consciousness of the population. But nothing 
could justify the extremes to which the Church system 
was carried in this direction. Nothing could justify 
a Church of any time or people in thus burying the 


simple ordinance of Christ under a mass of sensational 


superstition.’ 

1 Mr. Lecky, in his ‘ History of 
Rationalism,’ among other mon- 
strous assertions, utterly at vari- 
ance with the facts of history, takes 
upon himself to affirm that ‘for 
1500 years after the establishment 
of the Christian religion it was in- 
tellectually and morally impossible 
that any religion that was not 
material and superstitious could 
have reigned over Europe.” And 
that ‘‘ superstition is the inevitable, 
and therefore the legitimate condi- 
tion of an early civilization.’’—Vol. 
li. p. 227, 228. 

When Christianity has come in 
contact with a people in a state of 
barbarism, or low civilization, if it 
has not raised them out of this state 
so far as to enable them to apprehend 
its divine dootrines, it has, of course, 
been debased by them and loaded 


with superstition. And the more 
surely so, if the teachers of the re- 
ligion themselves have departed 
from the purity and truth of the 
Christian faith. But in the first 
century it was indisputably shown 
that a Christianity, not debased by 
idolatry and superstition, could be 
established in companies of men of 
all classes throughout the Roman 
empire ; and, therefore, there evi- 
dently was no intellectual or moral 
impossibility in the propagation of 
such a religion to any extent 
throughout the population. Andif 
possible then, it was possible at any 
other time, if the same truths had 
been presented to men’s hearts and 
minds. . 
The earliest and the latest annals 
of the Gospel distinctly show that 
the divine message of Christianity, 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 281 


This materialization or making-outward of all spiritual 
acts grew up and flourished, when some of the funda- 
mental inner principles of evangelic truth had been 
forgotten or obscured. It was strengthened and en- 
couraged by the simultaneous growth of the hierarchical 
and sacerdotal pretensions with which it was closely 
allied. And it gained its height, when after its union 
with the imperial authority, the Church became more 
than ever a power of earth instead of heaven, and vainly 
thought to honour its heavenly Lord by an ambitious 
display of temporal magnificence. 

We may admire whatever is admirable in the character 
of the good men of those days. We may acknowledge 
their piety, their zeal, their self-denial, their martyr- 
courage ;—but to approve of the system which they 
upheld in the Church would be to prefer the delusions of 
man to the truth of God. And to attempt to revive that 
system now,—and to resuscitate, in an age so different 
from theirs, their dead and buried symbolisms and mys- 
teries,—above all, to do this with the warnings of 
Church history sounding in our ears, and with the New 
Testament opened wide before our eyes,—would be a 
fatal anachronism indeed! It would seem to betoken a 
blindness which nothing could enlighten, an infatuation 
hopeless of a cure. 


when faithfully proclaimed, isable rism of the negro, and the cannibal- 
to cope, not only with a lowstate ism of the New Zealander 
of civilization, but with the barba- 


LECTURE. ΥΤΤ, 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


‘ELE 


THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


N nothing perhaps has the tendency of human nature 
to pervert and corrupt the best gifts of God been 
more clearly and sadly shown than in the treatment 
which the Christian religion has received at the hands of 
Christian men. And in no part of that religion have 
the effects of such a tendency been more strikingly 
exhibited than in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 
In its original institution the most simple of all reli- 
gious ordinances, it became in the hands of men a most 
awful mystery. In its apostolic use a pledge of sound- 
ness in the faith, it was made in the hands of men an 
example of gross superstition and idolatry. In its divine 
intention a bond of brotherly love and mutual kindness, 
it was changed in the hands of men into an occasion of 
the most cruel persecution. 
Being instituted by Jesus just after his last participa- 
tion in the most popular and attractive of the Jewish 


festivals, to the place of which this sacrament was in some 
285 


286 ΤΣ ΟΣ Ὁ δυλφ δ S OUPPAR. 


measure to succeed,—and just before the last scenes of 
his death and passion, which it was especially intended 
to commemorate,—it forcibly appealed to the sympathies 
both of Hebrew and of Gentile Christians. And as it was 
not an ordinance, like baptism, for a single celebration 
at the beginning of the Christian life, but for frequent 
recurrence during the whole of it, for a continually re- 
newed remembrance of the Saviour and his saving work, 
and for a sign and means of an unfailing perseverance in 
fellowship with him, it naturally became a central point 
round which were gathered the deepest feelings and 
devotions of the Church. And thus the whole spirit of 
Christian worship at any given period stamped itself 
upon the mode in which this sacrament was adminis- 
tered; and contrariwise the mode of its administration 
re-acted with a powerful influence upon the general 
character of the whole Christian worship. 

In the early part of the apostolic period so simple 
was the manner in which this Christian ordinance was 
observed, that it hardly bore the appearance of a reli- 
gious solemnity ; except that every meeting of Christians 
at that time was marked with a strong outflowing of 
religious feeling, which solemnized their whole life, and 
almost made every action of it a religious service. The 
Lord’s Supper, as then administered, was immediately 


31 


preceded by the Agapé, or “feast of charity”? and 


1 The word "Ay ἀπῇ in this sense feature, occurs in the Epistle of St. 
of a feast or supper, in which Chris- Jude (verse 12), ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις 
tian love was the most prominent wr, ‘‘in your feasts of charity.” 


ΡΥ SUPPEHEK. 287 


Christian brotherhood, in which the distinctions of rank 
and social position were laid aside, and all met and 
sat down together with that free acknowledgment of 
equality in Christ, which has been before described. 
Immediately after this, and as a concluding part of it, 
And the bread 


was then broken and distributed with the wine among 


bread and wine were laid on the table. 


all the guests after Christ’s example and appointment ; 
the very words of thanksgiving and of presentation, 
which Jesus had originally used, being doubtless repeated 
by an Apostle, or whoever presided at the meeting. 
Hence the name of “The Lord’s Supper,” or the still 
more simple appellation of “ The breaking of bread,” was 
given to this ordinance, including apparently at first the 
whole social meal, the Agapé itself, as well as the sacra- 
And this 


custom sufficiently accounts for the circumstance that 


mental celebration with which it closed. 


among the first Christians at Jerusalem, who were so 
united as “to be together and to have all things 
common,” and who were almost like one large family, 
the hallowed “breaking of bread” in the Lord’s Supper 
seems to have taken place every evening; the principal 


It is worthy of notice that this word 
ay ann, which is used more than a 
hundred times in the New Testa- 
ment, did not exist in the classical 
Greek language, though the kindred 
verb ἀγαπάω did. Neither of the 
Greek words, ἔρως and pzA za, were 
appropriate for expressing the holy 


love to God, and the disinterested 
love to man, which was to hold so 
preeminenta place in the Christian 
religion ; a new word, therefore, 
was employed, which from the 
Latin caritas, has been often trans- 
lated ‘‘charity” in our English 
Bible. 


288 tHE LORDS? SUPPER. 


meal of each Christian company being eaten together, 
and concluded with this sacred rite. . 

That this practice of uniting the sacramental celebra- 
tion with an actual supper was extended also to Gentile 
Churches is plainly evidenced by what occurred at 
Corinth in connection with it. For the disorders and 
profanation which St. Paul reproved there could not 
have happened, if an ordinary supper at which different 
classes met, and at which excess on the one hand and 
a deficiency of food on the other could take place, had 
not formed the commencement or introduction of the 
more strictly religious ceremony. These disorders, how- 
ever, at Corinth, which arose from the mismanagement 
of the whole celebration, and which probably were not 
confined to that Church alone,—the increase in the num- 
bers of Christian communities—and perhaps the suspicion 
with which their heathen neighbours regarded these 
evening meetings,—led afterwards to the separation of 
the sacramental supper from the “Feast of Charity.” 
The former, as a more entirely religious act, was then 
attached to the principal public devotions of the Church, 
which took place in the morning; the Agapé being still 
held separately in the evening as had previously been 
the case. 

This separation was possibly one of those things which 
St. Paul arranged among the other matters, which he 
promised “to set in order” on his next visit to Corinth 
after writing his Epistles to the Christians there. But 
as might be expected from no general authoritative 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. 289 


order having been issued for this purpose, the change 
did not take effect in all places at once. Among the 
Christians in the Province of Pontus mentioned by 
Pliny’ in his letter to Trajan, the older custom seems 
to have been still retained ; but long before this, at 
the time when the second Epistle of St. Peter, and the 
Hpistle of St. Jude, were written, the Agapé must have 
been already disunited from the Lord’s Supper. For 
the disgraceful conduct of those who are so severely 
censured in these Epistles, though taking place at the 
“Feasts of Charity,’ does not appear to have had any 
connection with a profanation of the sacred ordinance. 
In the time of Justin Martyr, in the middle of the 
second century, the separation had become an esta- 
blished practice, and the sacramental celebration formed 
a regular part of the usual Sunday morning services of 
the Church. Yet a reminiscence of the earlier custom 
survived even to the end of the fourth century in some 
churches, which seem to have kept the anniversary of 


1 Pliny’s words are, ‘‘ quod essent 


soliti stato die ante lucem conve- 
nire, carmenque Christo, quasi deo, 
dicere secum invicem; seque sacra- 
mento non in scelus aliquod ob- 
stringere, sed ne furta, ne latro- 
cinia, ne adulteria committerent, 
ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum 
appellati abnegarent, quibus perac- 
tis; morem 5101 discedendi fuisse, 
rursusque coeundi ad capiendum 
cibum, promiscuum tamen, et in- 
noxium.’’—Ep. x. 97. 

If the Lord’s Supper is alluded to 


in this account, I think it must be 
in the last part of the passage, when 
they met again later in the day ad 
capiendum cibum; which would 
hardly have been mentioned if it 
had not been a part of their reli- 
gious worship. The use of the word 
sacramento,in connection with their 
early morning devotions, is no evi- 
dence that what we call a ‘‘sacra- 
ment” was added to their morning 
service. Pliny’s whole account, 
however, is necessarily very imper- 
fect and obscure. 


19 


290 FB LORDS “SUPPER. 


the institution of this sacrament with an express imita- 
tion of the original supper of the Lord. 

The Agapé itself was evidently an apostolic institu- 
tion; and was at first no doubt not only an evidence 
of the existence, but also a powerful means for the 
promotion, of a strong feeling of union and Christian 
brotherhood. Notwithstanding the irregularities above 
alluded to, it continued after its separation from the 
Lord’s Supper to be observed not unprofitably by 
different Churches, though not so frequently as before. 
At the beginning of the third century, if Tertullian’s 
account may be our guide, such social meetings, con- 
ducted with such excellent order, and so much piety 
and kindly feeling, as he describes, must have been 
productive of the best effects ; and must have exhibited 
a very striking contrast to the ordinary pagan festivities. 
But these meetings, so excellent when well regulated, 
were from the beginning liable to abuse after they were 
separated from the Lord’s Supper, as well as before. 
Such abuses are alluded to in the Epistle of St. Jude, 
as happening even in his time; and at a later period, 
when the early Christian fervour was diminished, dis- 
cipline more relaxed, ‘and the numbers of nominal 
Christians much increased, these abuses became more 
glaring. The original *47a2y was of course held in the 


1 This custom appears to be ta altarisnon nisi a jejunis homini- 
alluded to in the canon of the bus celebrentur, excepto uno die 
Council of Carthage, a. ὕ. 397, anniversario, quo ewna Domini cele- 
which was as follows: ‘“‘Sacramen- hratur.’”’-—Can. 29. 


PEE LORDS SOPPER. 


291 


“wworship-room,” where Christian societies met for all 


religious purposes ; 


and consequently it continued after- 


wards to take place in Churches ; but when the festival 


became more secularized this custom was thought ob- 


jectionable, and was ordered to be discontinued.’ The 


1According to Tertullian’s ac- 


count the object of the Agapé was 
the comfort and refreshment of the 
poor, as well as the promotion of 
cheerful piety. The eating and 
drinking was kept within the 
bounds of moderation, though suf- 
ficient to satisfy the wants of all ; 
and being preceded by prayer, was 
followed by singing psalms or sa- 
cred songs ; and prayer concluded. 

**Coena nostra de nomine ratio- 
nem sui ostendit: vocatur enim 
"Ayadnn, id quod dilectio penes 
Grecosest. Quantisque sumptibus 
constet, lucrum est pietatis nomine 
faceresumptum. Siquidem inopes 
quoque refrigerio isto juvamus. . . 
Si honesta causa est convivii, re- 
liquum ordinem discipline de cau- 
sa estimate, quid sit de religionis 
officio. Non prius discumbitur 
quam oratio ad Deum pregusietur. 
Editur quantum esurientes capi- 
unt; bibitur quantum pudicis est 
utile. Ita saturantur ut qui memi- 
nerint etiam per noctem adoran- 
dum Deum sibi esse ; ita fabulan- 
tur, ut quisciant Dominum audire. 
Post aquam manualem ect lumina, 
ut quisque de Scripturis Sanctis, vel 
de proprio ingenio potest, provo- 
catur in medium Deo canere. 
Hine probatur quomodo biberit. 
Atque oratio convivium dirimit.— 
Tortul.”’ ‘Apol.’ i. 39. 


During the 3rd and 4th centuries 
the customs observed in connec- 
tion with the ‘‘Feast of Charity’’ 
seem to have varied at different 
times andin different Churches. 

In Tertullian’s account given 
above the Agapé appears altoge- 
ther disconnected from the Lord’s 
Supper ; but in Cyprian’s time there 
seems to have been an evening 
feast, or supper, very much like an 
Agapé, which was regarded as a 
sequel of the sacrament adminis- 
teredin the morning. This, atany 
rate, appears to be implied in 
Cyprian’s argument against the 
Aquarti—the Teetotallers of his 
time ; though the passage (in Ep. 
63, ad Cecilium), is obscure. 

In some places it was the custom, 
after the Eucharist was over, to 
have a common meal of the things 
which had been brought as offer- 
ings by the worshippers. And, in 
the fourth century, Chrysostom and 
others speak of feasts after the Sa- 
cramental Communion, without 
calling them ‘‘Agapz :” and, ac- 
cording to these accounts the pro- 
visions on such occasions were not 
entirely what had been presented 
as offerings. 

As the genuine Agapz fell into 
disuse, their place was to some ex- 
tent occupied by the festivals in 
honour of Martyrs, which were con- 


292 


TEEN ΡΟΣ SUPT ER. 


genuine Agapé itself seems to have gradually fallen into 
disuse from the fourth century ; Churches justly using 
their Christian liberty, and their legitimate authority as 
independent societies, to set aside at their discretion an 
apostolic ordinance which had not been expressly de- 
clared to be of perpetual obligation. 

Since that time these “Feasts of Charity” have never 
to any extent been revived in Christian churches.” And 
it has continued to be usual for the public administra- 


tion of the Lord’s Supper 


ducted ona similar plan, and which 
were apparently the originals of 
the more modern ‘‘ Church-ales,”’ 
wakes, and fairs, usually connected 
with Churches or their patron 
saints. 

A consideration of what Augustin 
says in his answer to Faustus’s ob- 
jection, that the Christian festivals 
were derived from the heathen re- 
ligious feasts and sacrifices, seems 
to show that what are there called 
Agape, were really Martyrs’ festi- 
vals.—See Augustin ‘Cont. Faust.’ 
xx. 20, 21. 

After what is recorded of Chris- 
tian feasts, even in the apostolic 
age, we need not be surprised that 
drunkenness and other disorders 
sometimes disgraced these evening 
or night gatherings, giving just 
occasion for pagans to blaspheme ; 
but Tertullian’s violent abuse of 
them, after he became a Montanist, 
—so utterly at variance with what 
he had written in his ‘Apology ’— 
must, doubtless, not be taken au 


to take place in the morn- 


pied de la lettre. ‘*Apud te Agape 
in cacabis fervet, fides in culinis 
calet, spes in ferculis jacet. Sed 
majoris est Agape, quia per hance 
adolescentes tui cum sororibus dor- 
miunt.”’—Tert. ‘de Jejun.’ 17. 

Notwithstanding the decree of 
the Council of Laodicea, Ov δεῖ ἐν 
τοῖς κυριαπκοῖς, ἢ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλη- 
δίαις τὰς λεγομένας “Ayanas 
ποιεῖν, καὶ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ 
Θεοὺ ἐσθίειν καὶ aunovfire 
6tTpw@vrvetr (Can. 28) ; the custom 
of holding such feasts in Churches 
continued fora long time after in 
some places ; and at the Council of 
Trullo (4. pv. 692), it was found 
necessary to repeat the order. 

1In modern times the Church 
of the Moravian Brethren have re- 
newed a practice very similar to the 
ancient Agapé ; and owing to their 
simple manners, and the vigilance 
which from the smallness of their 
numbers they are able to exercise, 
no offence, I believe, has arisen 
out of it. 


Pe LORDS: SUPPER, 203 


ing; although there is no rule or direction of divine, 
or otherwise valid, authority restricting the celebration 
to that time; as there is evidently nothing in the ordin- 
ance itself, suggesting any obligation or propriety in such 
restriction. The custom of receiving this sacrament fast- 
ing seems to have prevailed even in Tertullian’s time, 
who makes some allusion toit. But in the fourth century 
it had grown into a gross superstition ; this tradition of 
the Church being then regarded as a divine command ; 
and to administer or receive either of the two sacra- 


ments, after eating food on that day, being looked upon 


as a dreadful sin.” 


The real nature, however, and true position of this 


1 Thus Augustin presumes to say 
that this custom was ordered by the 
Holy Spirit. ‘Et hoc placuit 
Spiritui Sancto ut in honorem tanti 
sacramenti in os Christiani prius 
Dominicum corpus intraret, quam 
ceteri cibi.”’—Ep. 118 ad Janu- 
arium, ὃ 6. 

And Chrysostom, being accused 
of transgressing this rule, protests 
his innocence with the most vehe- 
ment asseverations, as if such an 
imputation implied a most awful 
degree of guilt. ‘If I have done 
this, let my name be wiped out of 
the catalogue of the bishops, and 
not be written in the book of the 
orthodox faith. If I have done any 
such thing, let Christ cast me out 
of His kingdom.”’ 

Aéyov6. ὅτι twas éxo1vw- 
γηδα META τὸ φαγεῖν αὐτούς, 


HAL εἰ μὲν τοῦτο ἐποίησα, ἐξ- 
αλειφθείη τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ τῆς 
βίβλου τῶν ἐπιόκόπων, nai μὴ 
γραφείη ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς ὀρθο- 
δόξου πίστεως: ὅτι idov ἐὰν 
τοιοῦτον ἐγ ἔπραξα καὶ ἀπο- 
βαλεὲξ μὲ Χριστὸς ἐξ τῆς 
βασιλείας avrov.—Chrysost. Ep. 
125, ad Cyriacum. 

There was the same superstition 
about baptism ; and Chrysostom, 
being accused of having eaten some- 
thing before he baptized, thinks it 
necessary to deny the charge with 
the same vehemence as before : 
“Δέγουσί μοι, ὅτι ἔφαγες nai 
ἐβαπτιόας. Εἰ ἐποίησα τοῦτο, 
ἀνάθεμα ἔδομαι: μὴ αἰοιθμη- 
θείην εἰς ἐπιόπόπων ῥίζαν, μὴ 
γένωμαι μετ᾽ ἀγγέλων,.---ϑουύγηο 
antequam iret in exilium. (Doubt- 
ful whether it is Chrysostom’s), 


204 LHEALORD S SUPPER. 


sacrament in the Christian system, and the light in which 
it ought to be regarded by Christian men, are questions 
of much more importance than any consideration of the 
time of administering it, or of its conjunction with other 
religious services. Such questions have at times violently 
agitated the Church, supplying cardinal subjects of debate 
in the gravest controversies, giving occasion to persecu 
tion and martyr deaths, and riveting or unbinding the 
fetters of superstition according as they were handled 
and resolved. Such questions are agitated still with 
no slight vehemence, and with no slight difference of 
thought and feeling. So different indeed are the views 
entertained respecting this sacrament, and prominently 
advocated in the present day by different sections in 
our Church; that the breadth of platform which can 
give standing-room for them all seems almost wide 
enough for Anglican and Roman Churchmen to find a 
place upon it together. 

To consider this subject therefore as it is set forth 
in the New Testament, and as it appears in the eccle- 
siastical polity of the Apostles, is a task of very lively 
and serious interest. It is one which I would approach 
with all gravity, and with a desire to ascertain and to 
express the view which our Lord himself and His 
Apostles give us of this sacrament with as little as 
possible of any party spirit or personal prepossession. 

The first step in the enquiry respecting the nature of 
the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is naturally to look 
at the circumstances and the language of its original 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. 208 


institution. Our Lord Jesus Christ on the same night 
that He was betrayed, had joined with His Apostles in 
celebrating the Jewish Passover—that service of solemn 
joy, belonging to the promise made to Abraham rather 
than to the Sinaitic law—in which the lamb slain, and 
the sprinkled blood, were obvious types of Himself, and 
of what He was just going to accomplish for mankind. 
Taking some of the bread and of the wine which had 
been used in this sacrament of the Old Testament, He 
appointed them to be in future the outward symbols of 
a corresponding ordinance under the new dispensation 
of the Gospel covenant. Having pronounced a blessing, 
or thanksgiving, over them, He broke the bread, and 
gave it, and after it the cup of wine, to His disciples with © 
those simple but solemn words, with which we are all 
familiar, bidding them henceforth to do this in remem- 
brance of Him. 

Whatever meaning Jesus then attached to His words, 
that is the meaning which we should desire to keep in 
all our thoughts upon this sacrament. In whatever 
sense His Apostles, taught by the Spirit, retained and 
applied the words in the administration of it, that is the 
sense in which we should desire still to receive and to 
apply them. And it may help us to do this aright, if we 
look first at some particulars of the Jewish ordinance 
out of which this Christian Passover was evolved. 

1. At the celebration of this festival among the Jews 
the master of the house, or whoever presided at the 
supper, took some of the unleavened bread, and breaking 


296 LHES LORDS SUPPER. 


it blessed it, and gave thanks to God for all His mercies, 
and especially for the deliverance of their fathers from 
Egyptian bondage; and the cup of wine, which they 
drank immediately after eating the lamb, was called 
“the cup of blessing”—the very name which St. Paul 
Thus our Lord 
took up some of the very ceremonies of the Passover, 


gives to the wine of the Lord’s Supper.’ 


and applied them to His new institution; from whence 
we may conclude that they were to be understood as_ 
nearly as possible in the same sense as they had been in 
Now the Paschal Lamb with its 
blood of sprinkling was so eminently a representation of 
Christ and His atoning death, that we may well say that 
in the later ordinance the bread was to be Christ’s body, 


the older covenant. 


1 «‘'The officiator at the Passover 
held up some of the unleavened 
bread, and said, ‘This is the un- 
leavened bread which we eat, be- 
cause the dough of our fathers had 
not time to be leavened, before the 
Lord revealed himself, and re- 
deemed them out of hand. There- 
fore are we bound to give thanks, 
to praise, to laud, to glorify, to 
extol, to honour, to magnify him, 
that hath done for our fathers and 
for us all these wonders ; who hath 
brought us from bondage to free- 
dom, from sorrow to rejoicing, 
from mourning to a good day, 
from darkness to a great light, from 
affliction to redemption. There- 
fore must we say before Him, 
Hallelujah, praise ye the Lord! 
praise, ye servants of the Lord,’ 


&c. And so he said over Psalms 
cxilil. and cxiv., and concluded 
with this prayer, ‘ Blessed be 
Thou, O Lord our God, King ever- 
lasting, who hast redeemed us, 
and redeemed our fathers out 
of Egypt, and brought us to this 
night to eat unleavened bread and 
bitter herbs.’ ’’—Lightfoot’s ‘Tem- 
ple Service,’ xiii. 6. 

εἰ At the Passover, the third cup 
(they drank four) was drunk after 
eating the Lamb, and was called 
the ‘cup of blessing.’ This is the 
cup which Jesus told his disciples 
to divide amongst themselves. 
The fourth cup—commonly called 
the cup of the Hallel, or hymn— 
was the one which he took and 
used for the institution of the 
Lord’s Supper.” —Jbid. xiii. 8. 


ΠΡΟ 5 SOPPER. 297 


just as the Paschal Lamb had been His body before: 
the wine was to be the New Testament in His blood, 
just as the sprinkled blood of the Paschal Lamb had 
been the Old Testament in His blood before. And as 
the lamb and its blood had been to the Israelites the 
body and blood of Christ by sacramental anticipation ; 
so the bread and wine are in an exactly similar way 
the body and blood of Christ to us in a sacramental 
memorial of the past; there being in neither case any 
change whatever wrought out in the visible signs or 
figures by which the unseen realities were, and are, repre- 
sented; nor in the later any more than in the earlier 
sacrament, any ground whatever for supposing that the 
things which are seen and used are transformed by some 
divine and mysterious action, into the invisible things 
which are represented by them. 
2. The words also used by our Lord on this occasion, 
considered simply by themselves, lead to the same con- 
clusion. “This cup,’ He said, “is the New Testament 
in my blood.” Can these words mean anything else 
than that the cup with its wine, thus given to His 
Apostles, was to represent, or remind them of, the new 
Gospel covenant of mercy and blessing founded on and 
ratified by the shedding of His blood for the remission 
of sins? It is simply impossible in these words, with 
any regard to sense and intelligible meaning, to insist 
upon a literal acceptation of them, and to affirm that the 
cup is the New Testament, by some change miraculously 
effected in it, or that any other than a figurative or repre- 


208 ΤΕ LORDS SOPPER: 


sentative character was imparted to it. And if this be so, 
then the words, “This is my body,” applied to the bread, 
must have a similar meaning; and that element also of 
the supper must be equally a figure or representation. 

3. Besides this there is an earlier chapter in the Gospel 
history, which without containing any expressed refer- 
ence to this sacrament, supplies a most valuable explana- 
tion of the language of its institution. In John vi. the 
words used by our Lord, when He calls Himself the true 
bread from heaven, and asserts that without eating His 
flesh and drinking His blood we have no life in us, are - 
declared by Him to be worthless, if taken in the literal 
and carnal sense, in which the multitude received them. 
His flesh and blood are here referred to, not as objects 
of sight or even of mental appreliension, as they were in 
themselves, but as being given for the salvation of man; 
and the declared necessity of eating and drinking them 
is only a striking lesson for the inner spiritual life 
deduced from the outward actions of the body. As 
bread in order to nourish the corporal life must be eaten, 
and not merely touched or seen; so Christ, the Son of 
God made man, and giving Himself for us to be the 
food and nourishment of our spiritual life, must not 
merely be known or heard of, but must be received 
within by the self-appropriating power of a personal 
assent to, and reliance upon, this Gospel truth. And 
any other meaning in this case is absolutely revolting 
and impossible. Moreover the words of Jesus in this 
chapter are all the more instructive, because the idea 


THE LORDS SUPPER. 299 


of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is not here 
associated with any outward object, and is therefore the 
more unmistakably altogether a mental or spiritual act, 
a “feeding on Him in the heart by faith with thanks- 
giving.’ And hence it follows that the sacramental 
ordinance of the body and blood of Christ did nothing 
more than offer the same truth in another form ; teach- 
ing as by visible objects and actions representing the 
unseen, what had been taught before by words; im- 
pressing the same doctrine upon our hearts by means 
of the sight and touch, which had been before imparted 
through the hearing of the ear. In both cases the saying 
is alike applicable, “ Crede et manducasti.” Believe in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, as having given His body, and 
shed His blood for thee, and then thou hast eaten 
and drunk, in the only way in which thou canst eat and 
drink, this spiritual food. And thus this sacrament, as 
it came from the Saviour’s hands, appears as a sacred 
and significant action, exhibiting the faith, hope, and joy 
in Christ, and the communion with Him and with each 
other, which were to mark the profession and the life of 
His disciples. 

The Apostles of Christ having received this ordinance 
from their Lord introduced it at once, under the divine 
guidance, into the ministrations of the Church. And 
while it is spoken of in the New Testament in the most 
simple terms, utterly avoiding the extravagant and sen- 
sational language which was afterwards so frequently 
employed ; and while as an ecclesiastical rite it has no 


300 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


remarkable prominence given to it in the system of the 
apostolic Church; the following particulars may be 
distinctly gathered as taught and sanctioned by inspired 
authority. 

1. That this sacrament is a divinely appointed ordi- 
nance, to be reverently used ; and even when associated, 
as it was at first, with an ordinary supper, to be dis- 
tinguished from it by its sacred character. 2 

2. That it is to be celebrated as a memorial and repre- 
sentation of Christ, giving Himself to die for us; and is 
intended continually to declare or proclaim His death, 
and to remind Christians of what He did for them. 

3. That by a due reception of this bread and wine in 
conformity with the Lord’s appointment, the communi- 
cant has a participation in all the benefits of Christ’s 
body given, and His blood shed, for us; and is thereby 
assured of God’s love and goodness towards him, and of 
his spiritual union with the Saviour, and with the blessed 
company of all faithful people. 

4, That being a service of this holy import, it should 
be attended, not without serious thought and _ self-ex- 
amination ; and that a careless or profane use of it, as if 
it differed not from some ordinary food, was an offence 
against the body and blood of Christ therein commemo- 
rated, and incurred the divine displeasure, instead of 
obtaining a blessing.’ 

1An unfortunate mistranslation ous viewsand superstitious scruples 
and misunderstanding of two ver- about the Lord’s Supper. The 


ses in 1 Cor. xi., have helped to words in verse 27, ““ Whosoever 
occasion and keep up some errone- shall eat this bread anu drink this 


THE: LORDS SUPPER: 


301 


In the apostolic mode of administering this sacrament, 


it is more than probable that the only formulary ob- 


served was a repetition of the acts and words of the 


original institution. 


Indeed, as the whole transaction of the Last Supper 
was reproduced in this service, the expressly sacramental 


portion of it would naturally be an imitation of what the 


Saviour had done and said ; 


and the only form of conse- 


eration the blessing or thanksgiving such as He had used. 
In the middle of the second century, after the separa- 


cup of the Lord unworthily shall be 


guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord,” have led to a vague but 
alarming supposition, that a want 
of worthiness in the communicant 
makes him guilty of — putting 
Christ to death! But the words 
really mean that disorders such as 
those at Corinth—and, consequent- 
ly, any other profane treatment of 
this holy ordinance — was an 
offence, not against good manners 
merely, or common propriety, but 
against the body and blood of 
Christ therein represented,—a de- 
secration of a hallowed thing. 
The words, as they now stand in 
our Bible, have, strictly speaking, 
no meaning. A person may be 
guilty of a crime ; and the expres- 
sion ‘‘ guilty of death,” though in- 
correct in form, is obvious in 
sense ; ‘‘ but guilty of the body and 
blood” is, at any rate, in modern 
English, unintelligible: ἔνοχος 
ἔσται Tov δωματος should be 
translated, ‘‘ Will be guilty con- 


cerning the body.”’ 

The words in verse 29, ““ Hateth 
and drinketh damnation to himself, 
not discerning the Lord’s body,” 
introduced also unfortunately into 
our Communion Service, have 
often alarmed scrupulous minds. 
The translation ought to be, 
‘‘Kateth and drinketh (κρῖμα) 
judgment, or condemnation, to 
himself, from not distinguishing 
the Lord’s body” from a common 
supper ; such condemnation being 
immediately afterwards declared to 
have involved some affliction, sent 
to correct so grievous an error. 

1The words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 
x. 16, ‘‘the cup of blessing which 
we bless,” and ‘‘ the bread which we 
break,”’ and his informing them in 
the following chapter, that he had 
received from the Lord and deliy- 
ered unto the Corinthians, what 
Jesus did and said in the institu- 
tion of this sacrament, seem to 
warrant this conclusion, indepen- 
dently of all other considerations. 


302 THE LORDS SUPPER. 


tion of the Lord’s Supper from the “ Feast of Charity,” 
a very similar usage was still observed. The bread and 
wine being placed before the presiding minister, he led 
the devotions of the congregation by ascribing praise 
and glory to God, and expressing at some length their 
thanksgivings for all His mercies, and especially for 
those more immediately associated with their present 
service. And so prominent a place did this giving of 
thanks then occupy in the minds of Christian wor- 
shippers, that the name of “The Eucharist,” 4 Εὐχα- 
ριότία, 1ἴ.6., the thanksgiving, was one of the common 
appellations by which this sacrament was at that time 
known. At the conclusion of the minister’s prayer the 
congregation all expressed their assent by saying Amen, 
and the sacred elements were then distributed by the 
deacons of the Church. In this account thus given by 
Justin Martyr two practices are mentioned, which appear 
to have been usual at that period, though they are not 
found in the New Testament. Water was mixed with 
the sacramental wine, under the probably correct sup- 
position that wine thus mixed, being used at the Jewish 
Passover, must have been given by Jesus at the first. 
And portions of the bread and wine were after the 
service taken by the deacons to members of the con- 
gregation, who from sickness or other causes were un- 
avoidably absent, in token of the loving communion in 
which they also had a part.’ 


1The following is Justin’s ac- zposérarirayv ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος 
count : Ἔπειτα προσφέρεταιτῷ καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ upa- 


fae LORDS SUPPER: 303 


But in considering the apostolic use and administra- 
tion of this ordinance it is particularly necessary, as in 
some other cases, to mark the omissions of the New 
Testament. 

In the Sacred Record :— 

1. There is notthe slightest intimation that the validity 
of the sacrament depended upon any ministerial power 
or act; or that any Christian minister had the power of 
conferring sacramental grace through his administration 
of it. Indeed the analogy of the Jewish Passover, which 
this ordinance closely followed, will suggest that any 
Christian might preside at the Lord’s table, although 
after a time, as a’ matter of order, it would naturally 
devolve upon a presbyter to conduct this as well as the 
other religious services. 

2. There is not the slightest intimation that any 
change whatever was effected in the bread and wine; 
or that any power or virtue, natural or supernatural, was 
infused into them. They are not even said to be “ con- 
secrated,” but only to have a blessing or thanksgiving 
offered over them. 


ματος: HAL οὗτος λαβὼν αἶνον 
καὶ δόξαν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων 
διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ 
τοῦ Πνεύματος ἁγίου ἀναπέμ- 
πει, UAL εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
κπατηξιῶσθαι τούτων παρ᾽ αυ- 
τοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται. Οὗ 
δυντελέδαντος TAS EVYAS καὶ 
τὴν εὐχαριστίαν, TAS 6 παρῶν 
λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων, ’Aunr. 
Τὸ δὲ ἀμὴν τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνῇ 
τὸ γένοιτο σημαίνει. Εὐχαρι- 


OTHGAVTOS δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, 
UAL ἐπευφημήδσαντος παντὸς 
τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλὸ μενοι παρ᾽ 
ἡμῖν Ζιάπονοι, διδόασιν éuc- 
ὅτῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν 
ἀπὸ τοῦ ευχαριόστηθέντος 
ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, 
καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέ- 
povot. Καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη 
καλεῖται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, Εὐχαριό- 
τία.---“ Apol.’ i. § 85. 


304 LIPTE* LORDS” SOPPER: 


3. There is not the slightest intimation that our Lord 
Jesus Christ is in any sense present in, or im conjunction 
with, the consecrated elements; or that His presence in 
the believer’s heart at this service is different in kind 
from His presence in him at prayer, or in any other 
spiritual communion. 

4. There is not the slightest intimation that the Lord’s 
Supper is a sacrifice, or that the sacramental elements 
are offered on an altar by a priest. 

All these forms of sacramental doctrine, omitted in 
the New Testament, and unsupported by apostolic teach- 
ing, were afterwards introduced into the Church system, 
and grew in strength and hurtful power, as wider de- 
partures from divine truth took place. All these doc- 
trines were more or less immediately connected with the 
sacerdotalism of those times. They are still favourite 
tenets with Churches and individual men, by whom such 
sacerdotalism is upheld. They fall to the ground when 
it is overthrown; and revive with the re-establishment 
of its power. For a priest must have a sacrifice ;—the 
sacrifice in a Christian Church must be found in the 
Eucharistic elements ;—these elements to be a sacrifice 
must become literally the body and blood of Christ, 
or must have Christ in them or with them ;—and con- 
sequently some change, more subtle, or more gross, must 
be represented as effected in them by the official action 
and power of the priest. And thus the whole system 
is wrought out, and each part of it coheres with and 
supports another. 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. 305 


But it has been already pointed out, and, as I venture 
to think, distinctly proved, that according to the New 
Testament there is no priesthood in the Christian Church, 
but the eternal priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
in a secondary sense the universal priesthood of all those 
who are in Him. And consequently, as a sacrifice re- 
quires a priest, there can be no sacrifices in the Christian 
dispensation, but the one great and all-sufficient sacrifice 
offered once for all in the Saviour’s death; and the 
spiritual sacrifices which each Christian offers in virtue of 
his share in the universal priesthood,—the living sacrifice 
of himself,—the sacrifice of doing good, and communi- 
cating to others,—the sacrifice of praise and thanks- 
giving. 

But it may be well further to remark that it is not 
by such an inference only that the idea of a sacrifice is 
excluded. It is excluded also by the fact that no 
word signifying a sacrifice, or an altar which implies 
a sacrifice, or anything akin to them, is ever in the New 
Testament used of the administration of the Lord’s 
Supper, or of any other ministerial functions in the 
Christian Church. 

In reply to this assertion, the words in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, “ We have an altar,” are sometimes put 
forward to justify the notion of a Eucharistic sacrifice. 

It is assumed that the “altar” here named is the 
Communion table, and consequently that the Lord’s 
Supper is a sacrificial service, the officiating minister 
a sacrificing priest; and thus an attempt is made to 


20 


206 ΤΥ ΔΙ SOPPER: 


bring in the whole sacerdotal system under cover of this 
scriptural authority. 

But such an application of these words is inconsistent 
with the context, violates the principles of sound inter- 
pretation, and is at variance with the plain meaning of 
the words as they actually stand. For the context shows 
that the sin-offerings of the Jewish dispensation are here 
contrasted with the sacrifice of the death of Jesus as the 
sin-bearer for man, and therefore the “altar” must be 
the cross on which He died. And it is a mere make- 
shift to evade this meaning by thrusting the eleventh 
and the three following verses into a parenthesis, in order 
to disconnect them with the tenth. 

It is also contrary to all legitimate interpretation to 
take this single expression, and without any internal 
necessity to give it a meaning, which will fasten upon 
the subject of the Lord’s Supper a view quite at vari- 
ance with all that is elsewhere plainly declared about it 
in the New Testament.’ 


1Tt may be laid down as an 
axiom in the theory and practice of 
hermeneutics, which must not be 
departed from in the interpretation 
of any author, and especially an 
inspired author, that, ‘‘ when a sub- 
ject has been clearly and distinctly 
spoken of in several passages, all 
consistently giving the same view of 
it, we are not at liberty to take 
some single expression, standing 
alone, and not necessarily referring 
to the subject at all, and from this 
to extract, according to our plea- 


sure, quite a different view from 
that which was before given.” 

Now the subject of the Lord’s 
Supper is repeatedly spoken of in 
the New Testament, and in every 
instance in which it is distinctly 
referred to, the words, and tho 
ideas, of a sacrifice or an altar, are 
altogether excluded. 

That this is so, is seen— 

1. Inthe terms of its institution: 
where the attempt of Sacerdotalists 
to call ‘‘ do this”’ τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, a 
sacrificial term, is sufficiently met by 


THE LORDS SUPPER. 307 


And if we take the words, “we have an altar” just as 
they stand, and in their most literal acceptation, what 
do they affirm? ‘That as the older dispensation had an 
altar, so we, in the Christian dispensation, have an altar. 
Yes! the Jewish Church had an altar, one altar, not an 
altar in every synagogue, but one, only, divinely sanc- 
tioned altar in the Temple, on which acceptable sacrifices 
were placed. And we, under the Christian covenant, 
have an altar, one altar, not an altar in every Church, 
but one, only, divinely sanctioned altar, the Cross of 
Christ, on which the one, full, perfect, and accepted 
sacrifice was offered for us once for all. It was a 


observing that, among the nearly 
600 times in which the word zrové a 
occurs in the New Testament, there 
is no instance of its having this 
meaning, except that in such pas- 
sages as these it suits their purpose 
to discover it. 

2. In the names by which it is 
called— 

‘‘ The breaking of bread.” 

‘‘The Lord’s Supper.” 

3. By the terms in which it is 
spoken of by St. Paul in 1 Cor. x. 
16, &c., and 1 Cor. xi. 20, &c., 
where he dwells on the subject 
at some length. Notice especially 
in the former of these chapters, 
verses 20, 21: ‘‘ The things which 
the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice 
to devils, and not to God; and I 

‘would not that ye should have fel- 
lowship with devils. Ye cannot 
drink the cup of the Lord, and the 


cup of devils; ye cannot be par- 
takers of the Lord’s table, and the 
table of devils.’”’ Where, if the 
Lord’s Supper were a sacrifice, and 
the Lord’s table an altar, it would 
have been more natural and forci- 
ble to say, ‘‘ Ye cannot be par- 
takers of the Lord’s altar and the 
altar of devils.” But though in 
the heathen worship there was 
an altar and a table, in the Christian 
churches there was a table only. 

To call the Lord’s table then ‘‘an 
altar,” is to give quite a different 
view of the subject from that which 
is contained in all these passages, 
and to extract it from a solitary ex- 
pression, which does not neces- 
sarily refer to that sacrament. 

Therefore ‘‘ we have an altar” 
cannot, by any just interpretation, 
be said to mean ‘‘we have the 
Lord’s table.” 


308 


LFIETLORLD S SUPPER. 


* eriminal and superstitious will-worship, when the Jews 
multiplied altars in their land. What will it be in us, if 
we set up an altar in every parish church! * 

To trace in the history of post-apostolic thought and 
practice how the notion of a sacrifice in the Lord’s 
Supper crept into the Church, and how with it the 


1 Another interpretation of Heb. 
xiii. 10, which gives a very different 
view of the writer’s meaning, but 
is supported with much ingenuity 
and sound argument, was put for- 
ward a few years ago by the Rev, J. 
Taylor, in his volume on ‘The 
True Doctrine of the Holy Enu- 
charist,’ and deserves the serious 
consideration of theologians. 

According to this view, the writer 
in 1815 passage expresses himself as 
a Jew writing to Jews, and identi- 
fying himself with them, as St. 
Paul often does in other places ; 
and the ‘ altar ’’ is the Jewish altar, 
or sacrifice, namely, the sin-offer- 
ing, the blood of which was 
brought into the sanctuary, but 
the body was burned without the 
camp, no part of the flesh being 
eaten by those who attended in 
the Temple. 

The following is accordingly Mr. 
Taylor’s explanation of the whole 
passage. “ Be not carried about 
with divers and strange doctrines ; 
for it isa good thing that the heart 
be established with grace, not with 
meats, which have not profited 
those that have been occupied 
therein (those who have eaten). 
(Indeed, so far from eating being 


important,) we (Jewish people) 
have analtar (a sacrifice) whereof 
they have no right to eat who serve 
the tabernacle (whereof the priests 
themselves are not allowed to eat, 
which would never be, if eating 
were an essential part of the ser- 
vice). For (instance) the bodies 
of those beasts, whose blood is 
brought intothe sanctuary by the 
high priest for sin, are burned 
without the camp, (and, therefore, 
could not be eaten, though this did 
not prevent the blessing being re- 
ceived by the faithful worshipper). 
Wherefore, Jesus also, that he 
might sanctify the people by (the 
sprinkling of) his own blood (and 
not by his flesh being carnally 
partaken of) suffered without the 
gate (as the sin-offering was al- 
ways consumed there.)’’ For fur- 
ther details of Mr. Taylor’s argu- 
ment the reader is referred to pp. 
116-122 of his book before-men- 
tioned. 

It is obvious that, if this be the 
true meaning of the passage, it 
only proves still more strongly the 
position which I have maintained, 
as to the absence of all sacerdotal 
terms in connection with the Chris- 
tian ministry and its functions. 


ΤΑ LORDS SUPPER. 309 


notion also of a change in the consecrated elements 
sprang up, and grew more and more, until these two 
together gave birth to the doctrines of transubstantia- 
tion, host-worship, and the offering of Christ himself 
upon an altar by a priest, with a train of gross supersti- 
tions which followed in the rear, would be an instructive 
though a saddening task. But I can here only with 
great brevity notice some of the different steps by which 
this progress of error marked its downward course. 

1. As the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving 
was intimately connected with the service of the 
Eucharist, to which it gave its name, it was a very slight 
departure from apostolic truth and language to call the 
whole solemnity in this sense a sacrifice. And of this 
some indications appear in the writings of Justin Martyr, 
who, although he does not use any such expressions in 
his account of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in 
his ‘ Apology ; yet when contrasting the Christian with 
the Jewish economy, he observes that the sacrifices, 
which Jesus Christ ordered, were those which Christians 
offered in the thanksgiving over the bread and wine; 
and again that prayers and thanksgivings are the only 
perfect and acceptable sacrifices, and that these alone 
are offered by Christians in their commemoration of the 
suffering of Christ. 


1 The following are Justin’s 
words : παόδας οὖν 61a τοῦ ὀνό- 
ματος τούτου θυσίας, ἃς παρέ- 
δωκεν Ἰηδοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς 
γίνεσθαι, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τῇ 
εὐχαριότίᾳ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ 


ποτηρίου, τας ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ 
τῆς γῆς γινομένας ὑπὸ τῶν 
Χριστιανῶν, προλαβὼν ὁ Θεὸς 
μαρτυρεῖ EVAPEST OVS ὑπάρχειν 
αὐτῷ. 

And then just afterwards : Ὅτε 


310 ΤΗΣ SUPPER. 


2. In the latter part of the second century, a little 
further advance had been made. It was customary at 
that time for all the members of a Church to give bread 
and wine from which the elements for the celebration of 
the Lord’s Supper were taken. These, as we learn from 
_Irenzeus, were regarded as thank-offerings of gratitude 
to God, as the first-fruits of His creatures, and as a 
token that they consecrated to the Lord’s use all that 
they possessed. Hence these were called a pure sacrifice, 
acceptable to God; just as St. Paul calls the supplies 
sent to him by the Philippians, “a sacrifice acceptable, 
well-pleasing to God.” But that these oblations were 
still considered as spiritual sacrifices offered by all 
Christians, is evidenced by the remark of Irenzus, that 
these gifts were offered on “the altar in the heavens, to 
In 


this same author appears the first indication of the idea 


which all our prayers and oblations are directed.” 


of a change of any kind effected in the elements by the 
prayer of consecration; although it has in Ireneus a 


somewhat vague and ill-defined expression.’ But neither 


μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχα- 
ριότίαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γινό- 
μενα τέλειαι μόναι καὶ 
εὐαρεστοί εἰόι τ Θεῷ θυσίαι, 
καὶ αὐτὸς φημι. Ταῦτα γὰρ 
μόνα καὶ Χριόδτιαν οἱ παρέλα- 
βον ποιεῖν" καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀναμνήσει 
δὲ τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν ξηρᾶς τε 
καὶ ὑγρᾶς, ἐν ἡ καὶ τοῦ παθους 
ὃ πέπονθε St AVTOUS 0 υἱὸς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, μέμνηνται. ---- Dial. ο. 
Tryph.’ 117. 


The idea of ἃ sacrifice, thus con- 
nected with the Lord’s Supper, 
differs but little from that which is 
expressed in our Communion Ser- 
vice, where, in one of the con- 
cluding prayers, we desire our 
heavenly Father, ‘‘to accept this 
our sacrifice of praise and thanks- 
giving.” 

1 Trengeus about the sacrifice in 
the Lord’s Supper, says, ‘‘Igitur 
Ecclesiz oblatio quam Dominus 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. 311 


at this time, nor in the earlier view of Justin was there 
any reference to the sacrifice of Christ expressed or 
implied in such words, as if that was repeated in the 
Eucharistic service. 

3. But in the third century, when the outward, ma- 
terlalized conception of spiritual things was already 
exerting a stronger influence, an influence extended and 
confirmed by the manner in which fellowship with Christ, 
instead of being regarded as flowing from a believing 
appropriation of the Saviour in the heart, was made to de- 
pend on the outward instrumentality and intervention of 
the visible Church ;—when at the same time and in close 


docuit offerri in universo mundo 
purum sacrificium reputatum est 
apud Deum et acceptum estei. . . 

. . Offerre igitur oportet Deo 
primitias ejus creaturce, ut in quibus 
gratus exstitit homo, in his gratus 
ci deputatus, eum qui est ab eo 
percipiat honorem. . . . Et prop- 
ter hoc illi quidem (the Jews com- 
pared to slaves) decimas suorum 
habebant consecratas, qui autem 
perceperunt libertatem (Christians) 
omnia que sunt ipsorum ad Domi- 
nicos decernunt usus, hilariter et 
libere dantes ea, non que sunt 
minora utpote majorem spem ha- 
bentes, viduad ill4 et paupere hic 
totum victum suum mittente in 
gazophylacium Dei...... Non 
igitur sacrificia sanctificant homi- 
nem, non enim sacrificio indiget 
Deus; sed conscientia ejus qui 
offert sanctificat sacrificium pura 


existens. .°.'. 9... Quoniam igitur 
cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert, 
juste munus ejus purum sacrifi- 
cium apud Deum deputatum est. 
Quemadmodum Paulus Philippen- 
sibus ait, kc. . . . . . Nos quoque 
offerre vult Deus munus ad altare 
frequenter sineintermissione. Est 
ergo altare in celis; illuc enim 
preces nostre et oblationes nostra 
diriguntur.—‘ Adv. Heeres.’ iv. 34. 
The allusion of Irenzus to the 
idea of a change in the Eucharistic 
elements is found in the same ἡ 
chapter as the former quotation. 
‘*Quemadmodum enim qui est e 
terra panis percipiens invocatio- 
nem Dei, non jam communis panis 
est, sed eucharistia,ex duabusrebus 
constans terrena et czlesti ; sic et 
corpora nostra percipientia eucha- 
ristiam jam non sunt corruptibilia, 
spem resurrectionis habentia.”’ 


312 THE LORDS SUPPER. 


connection with this view, the Christian ministry was 
represented as a priesthood after the Jewish model, and 
its ministrations conformed as far as might be to those 
of the Old Testament ;—and when a desire to present 
Christianity in a form as attractive as possible to the 
pagan mind was felt by some of the best bishops of that 
age;—there inevitably resulted greater changes in the 
Church system with respect to the nature and adminis- 
tration of the Lord’s Supper, as well as of the other. 
sacrament, than any which had previously been made. 
And these changes, beginning with the third, gained 
force and emphasis in the following centuries, being re- 
commended, encouraged, and insisted on, by the teach- 
ing of the most distinguished men who in those times 
adorned and misled the Church. 

During that period, this once simple ordinance became 
in the general estimation of the Church a literal sacrifice; 
the Communion table, an altar ; the officiating minister, 
a priest. The sacrifice was no longer now the spiritual 
sacrifice merely of praise and thanksgiving, or the thank- 
offerings of all the communicants; but it was the sacrifice 
of Christ himself, symbolically and representatively per- 
haps at first, but afterwards spoken of in language, which, 
however modern ingenuity may attempt to soften it down, 
could convey to ordinary hearers at the time no other 
meaning, but that a real sacrifice of Christ himself was 
repeated in this service ;—that His body and blood ob- 
jectively present in the elements were offered up by the 
priest ;—and even that Christ himself lay upon the altar, 


FHE LORDS SUPPER. 313 


surrounded by attendant angels to do Him honour, and 
sacrificed there for the benefit of man.’ 

The notion of a change in the bread and wine, of which 
a slight indication only had previously appeared, now 
necessarily assumed a very definite and literal shape. 
It was declared that the sacramental elements were 
transformed into the very body and blood of Christ by 
the priest, either through the divine power of the words 
of Christ which he repeated, or through the direct action 
of the Holy Spirit, whose descent upon the elements 
he invoked in his prayer. Communicants were accord- 
ingly taught that the priest took in his hand “the Lord 
of the universe,” (τοῦ κοινοῦ πάντων ἐφάπτηται Se6nxvrTov), 
and that they received into their hands their “king” (τῇ 
δεξιᾷ ὡς μελλούδσῃ βασιλέα δέχεσθαι). 

Τὸ is true that the patristic writers of this period some- 
times use a more sober language; but even this is very 
far removed from that of the Apostles, and produced no 
effect upon the ordinary current of Church teaching, 
belief, and practice, when everything else which was 
said and done had a directly contrary tendency. 

It is true also that the word “ transubstantiation ” was 
not then employed; on the contrary it was usually, 
though not always, declared that the substance or nature 
of the bread and wine was not changed ;? yet it is equally 


1 The proofs of the statements declared to be changed; as 
contained in this and the following μεταστοιχειώδσας τῶν φαῖνο- 
pages, being too long for a note, μέγων τὴν guoiv. Gregory 
are placed in Appendix A. Nyssen. ‘Orat. Catech.’ ὃ 37. 

2Sometimes the very nature was 


214 ‘THE LORDS SUPPER. 


insisted on that a divine nature was added to, and incor- 
porated with, the material elements; that in them, as 
in the baptismal water, and in the ointment of the 
chrism, a change was made by which they were 
effectually altered in their qualities, and an inherent 
power imparted to them. And besides this the very 
explanations and modified statements, which were some- 
times given, show what the common teaching of the 
Churches must have been, to render such modifications 
needful. 

It is in vain that Protestant advocates have endea- 
voured to rescue the Nicene Church from the charge of 
gross superstition in their dealings with this sacred rite, 
and to fasten the doctrine of transubstantiation and its 
consequences upon the later Church of Rome alone. 
The doctrine of the earlier period differed from medieval 
Romanism, on this point, in scarcely anything beyond 
the use of another and synonymous word. In the fourth 
century the change in the Eucharistic bread and wine 
was called, as in the case of the baptismal water, “ trans- 
elementation.” And is it possible to say what real or 
important distinction there is between the earlier and 
the later word? Is it possible to point out any practical 
difference between a change of elements or qualities, and 
a change of substance? seeing that we know nothing 
about the substance of anything, except from its quali- 
ties, and it is only through its qualities that the 
substance of anything can affect us. 

Besides this, what the sacramental doctrines of those 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. © 315 


times really were, may be safely inferred from various 
practices incidental to, or resultant from them. 

With a superstitious reverence, quite alien to the 
Apostles’ teaching, it was considered even in the time of 
Tertullian a distressing thing if a particle of the conse- 
crated elements fell to the ground. 

Minute directions for holding the hands in a particular 
way for receiving the bread into them, and for taking the 
cup, are given by Cyril of Jerusalem, mingled with ex- 
pressions, which will accord only with the belief that the 
sacramental elements are the Lord himself. 

Chrysostom repeatedly terms the Lord’s Supper “a 
most awful sacrifice,” at which “the very angels shud- 
dered ;’—shows, as before mentioned, that it was deemed 
a heinous sin for it to be given or received by one who had 
on that day previously taken food ;—and declares that 
the sacred elements, when received into the body, did 
not pass through the processes of digestion and excre- 
tion like other food, but were in some miraculous way 
taken up into the human frame. 

And, finally, the consecrated elements, as shown by 
Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodoret, were worshipped 
with an adoration, but little differing, if at all, from the 
medizval host-worship of the Church of Rome. 

In conformity with the same doctrine, this sacrament, 
like that of baptism, was thought to be absolutely 
necessary for the salvation of all, and to be possessed of 
an inherent supernatural virtue. It was consequently 
administered to infants, as well as to adults. Portions of 


316 THEN LORD SOSOPPER. 


the consecrated bread were “reserved” in the custody 
of the Church, to be ready for emergencies ; and to be 
dropped into the mouth of the dying, as a viaticum, 
“to smooth their path from earth to heaven.” It is no 
wonder therefore if some people went a little beyond 
the authorised superstitions, and gave this viaticum 
to the dead. Communicants even in the third century 
took home from Church some of the sacramental bread, 
and kept it in their houses, in order to eat a portion of 
it every morning by themselves for their soul’s life and 
sustenance; and miraculous effects were even then 
ascribed toit. But in the following century it was usual 
for Christians to carry about portions of this bread with 
them in travels and voyages; and to have ἐν small piece 
attached to the person was believed to be a sure pre- 
servative in the greatest dangers. Neither were such 
superstitions confined to the vulgar and ignorant ; but 
were upheld by the highest authorities and lights of the 
Church.’ 

To complete our consideration of these sacramental 
doctrines and practices, which so strongly marked this 
notable period, it is necessary to observe how they 
affected the Christian remembrance of the dead. The 
communion of saints was not broken by death; and 
when the gifts of communicants were regarded as thank- 
offerings, similar oblations were presented in the name 


1 See, for instance, Ambrose’s having a piece of the consecrated 
account of his brother Satyrus be- bread tied in ascarf round his neck. 
ing saved, when shipwrecked, by 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. 317 


of those who had fallen asleep, and especially of the 
martyrs of each community, to signify that they were 
still united together in the same bond of Christian fellow- 
ship. But this harmless custom soon degenerated ; and 
the righteous dead were mentioned at this service in the 
belief that by the prayers and intercessions of departed 
prophets, apostles, and martyrs, the supplications of the 
Church were made more acceptable to God; and also 
that the offering up of the sacramental sacrifice in behalf 
of all dead Christians was of the greatest benefit to their 
souls. A little later in the same century the prayers 
and sacrifices of the Church were offered for all nominal 
Christians after their death, whether they were good or 
bad ; and Augustin in particular expresses his approba- 
tion of the practice in terms which would fully justify 
the doctrine of Purgatory as held in the Church of Rome. 
Some of the grossest errors which darkened the medizval 
Church before the dawn of the Reformation, were only 
these doctrines and practices of the third and fourth 
centuries a little more intensified, and mixed with a little 
more of ignorance and superstition. 


At the Reformation it happened from various causes 
that the doctrines respecting the sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper became a very central point in the conflict with 
Rome. In this country, at any rate, in the transition 
period of this great movement, the question of alleged 
orthodoxy or heresy, of conformity or martyrdom, 
often rested on this ordinance, and gathered round 


318 PHE DORDS SUPPER. 


it all the forces of the controversy. It was to some of 
our eminent and good men a question of actual life and 
death, demanding therefore their gravest consideration, 
and most careful judgment. 

Before they had fully emancipated their minds from 
the trammels of human error which had so long bound 
the Church, our early Reformers had been enabled to 
erasp the great fundamental principle that the written 
word of God, and not ecclesiastical tradition, is the 
fountain of authority in religious doctrines; and with 
a truth-loving determination very rarely equalled, they 
resolved to seek there the solution of the Eucharistic 
question, and at all hazards to abide by it when found. 
In maintaining this resolution, they not only faced death 
in a dreadful form, rather than deny what they were 
convinced was true; but with a moral courage of a 
higher and more noble kind they preferred truth before 
every other consideration, before every opposing senti- 
ment or opinion which had naturally preoccupied their 
minds. Deeply imbued as they were with patristic 
learning, the special study of their previous years, and 
accustomed as they had been to admire and venerate 
the Christian Fathers of the earlier centuries, and to 
derive from them their dogmatic theology and habits of 
religious thought; their love of truth outweighed all 
such prepossessions. They put aside all the teaching of 
the earlier and the later Church which they found to 
be inconsistent with that of the New Testament. And 


THE LORD'S SUPPER. 319 


they went back to the pages of inspiration for the 
doctrines which they were to uphold, and to the purity 
of the apostolic age for the ceremonial in which these 
doctrines were to be set forth. 

Tt is owing to this that we have now in our Prayer- 
book, in spite of some blemishes and unamended defects, 
so grandly simple and nearly primitive a Communion 
Service ; with no teaching of transubstantiation or trans- 
elementation in it,—no change in the sacramental ele- 
ments indicated or implied,—no exaggerated or ma- 
terialized declaration of the presence of Christ,—the very 


> 


word “altar” carefully excluded, with all notion of a 
sacrifice offered up in the service, except the spiritual 
sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, of ourselves, our 
souls and bodies, and of communicating to those who are 
in need,—no prayers or offerings for the dead or trast 
in their intercession,—no adoration of the consecrated 
elements,—no directions for a fantastic or superstitious 
mode of receiving them,—no administration of them to 
infants,—no reserving of them for superstitious pur- 
poses,—no encouragement to a vain reliance on a formal 
use of them. 

Every one of these unscriptural doctrines and practices 
our early Reformers had learned from the best Fathers 
of the third and fourth centuries, and found them almost 
all perpetuated and enforced in the Church of their own 
time. But they swept them all away from their own 
hearts, and from the Church of the Reformation, when 


320 THE DORUS SOPPER. 


they had discovered that they “were grounded upon no 
warranty of Scripture but were rather repugnant to the 
word of God.” Oh! that we had more of their noble 
Bercean spirit to do the work which needs now to be 
done for the cause of Christian truth, and for the 
Church of Christ within our land. 


EEC TURE V Itt; 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


21 


ΥΠΙ. 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


N the foregoing lectures an attempt has been made,— 
not to give a full and comprehensive view of the 
apostolic Church as it appears in the records of the New 
Testament,—a subject too wide for our present limits,— 
but to select for consideration certain prominent points 
of special import, by which this divine institution is most 
strongly marked, and which, as it seems to me, are 
worthy of more attention, than at the present time they 
usually receive. And although many particulars have 
_ been left untouched, or noticed with great brevity; yet 
enough has at any rate been observed, to supply from 
its intrinsic importance materials for serious thought to 
Christian men in this our day; especially to those who . 
reverence and love our national Church, who see its 
dangers, and who earnestly desire that its outward form, 
as well as its inner spirit, should be regulated, as far as 
possible, by divine truth and wisdom. 


Most interesting has it been to me,—however I may 
(323) 


. 


324 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


have failed to make it so to others,—most interesting, 
though not without its sadness, to trace the characteristic 
features of the Church of Christ in its primitive and 
apostolic state; and then to mark how its grand and 
spiritual simplicity, preserved awhile after the departure 
of the Apostles, began even in the earliest centuries to 
be marred by the doctrines and inventions of men, and 
to be overlaid with imposing but superstitious cere- 
monials. But it is not merely as an interesting historical 
study that I have desired to draw attention to the most 
ancient and only authoritative period of the Church. 
The lessons, which this history can teach us at the pre- 
sent time, are something more than an interesting study. 
They are, as it seems to me, the very lessons, which of 
all others it is most needful for us now to learn, that we 
may apply them to our own ecclesiastical polity and 
practice. 

To put these lessons forward in a distinct and positive 
shape, and to say expressly, even in general terms, what 
ought consequently to be done, may be thought pre- 
sumptuous in one who has no personal authority or 
official position, to command attention to his words. 
But in days like these, when long-established confidences 
are being overthrown,— when no mere reverence for 
antiquity can preserve any institution from the shaking 
of the time,—when in particular our national Church is 
in such a state, that men ofall opinions are either wishing 
or fearing its speedy demolition,—it is well for every one, 
who sees the danger of its position, but does not despair 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. -325 


of it, if only English Churchmen could be induced to 
consider what that position really is, and to act accord- 
ingly,—to speak out with all boldness, and to say, as 
far as he has opportunity to be heard by many or by 
few, what he believes the emergency requires. If it be 
God’s pleasure the smallest instruments may produce the 
sreatest effects; and strength may issue forth from 
weakness. 

The original idea of an established or national Church 
unhappily grew up and shaped itself in Christendom | 
from the false position assumed by the Christian body 
in the time of Constantine and subsequent Christian 
emperors. The Judaistic and semi-pagan tendencies, 
which before this had so strongly affected the Church 
system, unfortunately then carried the leading minds, 
and indeed the general feeling and convictions of the 
Church, to the Old Testament and the peculiarities of 
the Jewish polity, for their guidance in the change which 
had occurred in the posture of the civil power. Utterly 
forgetting the very essential distinction between the 
theocracy of the Jews with its politico-religious institu- 
tions of divine appointment, 


and the religion of Christ, 
expressly declared to be not of this world, and to need 
not this world’s weapons of defence,—they encouraged 
the employment of the civil sword to enforce the authority 
of the Church; until at last it became the settled and 
inveterate sentiment throughout Christendom, that it 
was the duty of kings and governments not only to 
establish Christianity as the religion of their dominions ; 


326 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. — 


but to put down by force all deviations from the doc- 
trines and practices of the Church thus established, and 
to maintain what it held to be Christian truth with the 
whole weight of their magisterial power. 

This doctrine, though it attained its greatest height in 
the Church of Rome, and was associated with its most 
revolting tyranny, was too deeply rooted to be at once 
discarded by Protestant Churches, when they were freed 
from the Romish yoke. In our own Church religious tole- 
ration was long considered a national sin. The Puritans, 
with all their abhorrence of Romish doctrines, held as 
strongly as Rome itself that the persecution of dissen- 
And the 
most earnest and devoted of the Scottish-Churches at 


tients, even to the death, was a religious duty. 


the present day still hold to nearly the same principles, 
but very partially modified by the opposing influence of 
modern thought. 

The idea of a national Church entertained in England 
to the end of the Stuarts’ dynasty, and since then only gra- 
dually and slowly put aside, was that the national Govern- 
ment was to choose the true religion,—i.e., necessarily 
the religion which it considered to be true ; to impose this 
chosen religion upon the people; to embody its forms 
and rules in the laws of the land; and to enforce them 


by civil penalties. But at the present time, when reli- 


1 Jeremy Taylor, in his ‘ Liberty 
of Prophesying,’ shows that he had 
some idea of the injustice and un- 
reasonableness of religious perse- 
cution. He could write, ‘‘It is un- 


natural and unreasonable to perse- 
cute disagreeing opinions. Unna- 
tural; for understanding being a 
thing wholly spiritual, cannot be 
restrained, and, therefore, neither 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 327 


gious liberty has been at last secured, and the civil 
magistrate is no longer regarded as the highest authority 
in religious truth, our established Church stands on a 
very different footing,—must be looked upon in a very 
different light,—and must be maintained by very different 
means, from those which prevailed in the days of Queen 
Elizabeth, and in the seventeenth century. 

For the security and permanence of our national 
Church it is necessary that it should be approved by the 
intelligence, and possess the affection, of the nation. The 
danger, therefore, of the Church of England at the pre- 
sent time may be measured by the extent to which it 
has lost its hold upon the mind and heart of the English 
people. Since, in a free country like this, where, if a 
popular conviction be real and strong, the popular voice 


punished by corporal afflictions. 
It is in aliena republica, a matter of 
another world. You may as-well 
cure the cholic by brushing a man’s 
clothes, or fill a man’s belly with a 
syllogism. .... And as itis un- 
natural, so itis unreasonable that 
Sempronius should force Caius to 
be of his opinion, because Sem- 
pronius is consul this year, and 
commands the lictors. As if he 
that can kill a man cannot but be 
infallible ; and if he is not, why 
should I do violence to my con- 
Science because he can do violence 
to my person ?”’—xiii. 10. 

_ Yet in other passages of the same 
treatise, the worthy bishopis by no 
means so clear or satisfactory. 


Locke, in his ‘ Letters on Tole- 
ration,’ the first of which was pub- 
lished in 1689 is more decided and 
uncompromising in his opinions ; 
and, as might be expected from 
him, enforces his conclusions with 
clear arguments, very forcibly ex- 
pressed. But his sentiments were 
too much in advance of the age to 
produce much effect upon the 
minds even of the leading men. 

Kling William III. seems to have 
had juster ideas, than any of our 
sovereigns before him, as to the 
duties of a civil government with 
respect to religion ; but neither the 
parliament, nor the clergy, nor the 
country in general, were then able 
fully to appreciate them. 


828 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION 


will be heard, and will prevail, the Church as a national 
institution could not long survive the loss of the national 
confidence. That our Church has lost this confidence 
to a considerable extent, and is, at any rate, approach- 
ing to a position which would render it no longer the 
Church of the English people, but one sect among others 
in the land, cannot, in the face of the most obvious facts, 
be with any truth denied, or with safety be ignored. 

The causes, or essential symptoms, of this state of 
things, a consideration of which is necessary in order to 
appreciate, and if possible to apply, any remedies for 
their removal, are, I venture to. submit, especially such 
as the following. 

First, the felt unsuitableness of our Church system, 
in many respects, to the state of society, life, and thought 
amongst us. Some portions of its language, its formu- 
Jaries, and its reeulations,—some of the things which it 
directs to be done, and some omissions of what might 
advantageously be ordered or allowed,—many of its 
processes, laws, and canons, whether cumbering the 
Church with their obsolete enactments like rusty weapons 
at once dangerous and useless, or else offending common 
sense and intelligence by their occasional and spasmodic 
enforcement,—its general stiffness and inflexibility in the 
midst of the great varieties of our actual cireumstances,— 
have all operated to make it far less adapted to the pre- 
sent time, and far less capable of influencing the bulk of 
our population, than it is most desirable that a national 
Church should be. In all its outward points of contact 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 329 


with the nation’s life, the Church for nearly the last three 
hundred years has, in fact, been almost standing still, 
while the people have been advancing in a movement, or 
rather a combination and succession of movements, 
which have wonderfully changed their whole condition ; 
and have greatly altered their relation to the Church, 
and the feelings which they entertain towards 10. 

That great national institutions should shift and 
change with every breath of popular opinion, or with 
the ebb and flow of popular feelings, would indeed be a 
ereat evil even in secular affairs, and much more in those 
of religion: neither do I at all question the truth of 
Richard Hooker’s words, that the alteration of long- 
established laws and customs, “though it be from worse 
to better, hath in it inconveniences and those weighty.” 
Yet, on the other hand, it is no less certain that, while 
the divinely-revealed truths of Christian doctrine con- 
tinue unchanged from age to age, and must always be 
unchangeably maintained, the forms, and ordinances, 
and prescribed practices, in which man’s authority and 
Church discretion must exhibit those truths, may and 
ought to vary with the marked variations of human life 
and civilization. And a Church which does not allow 
this, must become in effect more and more dead and 
obsolete, and may expect to be left at last by the 
receding tide a stranded vessel upon a deserted shore. 


A second cause of danger to our national Church 
arises from internal dissension,—from the great and irre- 


“ 


330 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


concilable differences of doctrine and of practice within 
its pale-—and the connection of these differences with 
That a national Church 


should embrace very considerable differences of religious 


our ecclesiastical system. 


opinion,—not requiring or expecting all it members, or 
even all its clergy, to look at the entire body of Chris- 
tian truth with exactly the same eyes, or from the same 
point of view,—and that it should not insist on the very 
same outward forms and observances in every diocese, 
or in every congregation,—would not in itself be a cause 
of weakness and danger, but rather of strength and 
security. But that there should be, as there are in our 
case, doctrinal and ritualistic differences so strongly 
opposed to each other among the clergy of a Church, 
which still requires from them all the most exact agree- 
ment of doctrine and ritual, and which is supposed to 
bind down every beneficed clergyman to a rigid uni- 
formity in his ministrations, as far as a solemn declaration 
can bind his conscience and his practice ; and that there 
should be withal no discipline worthy of the name to 
prevent this scandal, nor any great attempt or care to 
alter the prescribed restrictions, the very strictness of 
which makes them so unavailing ;' seems to me to be as 


1 Unreasonably stringent restric- 
tions applied to a large body of 
men for any length of time will 
always be evaded or rendered prac- 
tically worthless by many of those 
who are supposed to be bound by 
them, such result being often ac- 


companied with demoralising ef- 
fects. A memorable example of 
this has been exhibited in the his- — 
tory of the ‘‘Act of Uniformity,” 
which was bound upon the Church 
of England at the ““ Restoration.” 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 331 


dangerous a symptom of decadence and disruption as 
can well be imagined in a Christian community. 

Under such circumstances the different schools of 
religious thought and practice, as they are sometimes 
called, are not like the differences of opinion which mark 
a wholesome state of religious liberty, and intelligent 
faith; for they are necessarily stamped with more or 
less of a demoralized and dishonest character, which 
injuriously affects the clergy themselves, however they 
may succeed in satisfying their own consciences; and 
which tends to weaken their moral influence with the 
people at large,—to dissociate in the popular mind the 
ideas of religious profession and of honest truthfulness,— 
and so to undermine the general confidence in a Church 
which admits of so anomalous and unsatisfactory a 
condition. 

The gravest evils might be expected to result from 
such a state of things, independently of any question as 
to the soundness or unsoundness of the doctrines which 
are held and taught by any of the different parties in the 
Church. But when to this is added the fact that an 
active, zealous, and influential body among the clergy, 
well organized and closely united within their own ranks, 
not over-scrupulous as to the use of means, and encou- 
raged by a large measure of success, are endeavouring 
to bring us back to the doctrines and practices of the 
fourth and fifth centuries and through them to Rome,— 
the danger to the Church appears still more imminent. 
For although this Romeward movement will doubtless 


332 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


never succeed in persuading the English nation to sub- 
mit again to the yoke of papal bondage,—it may 
succeed in. producing a large amount of superstition and 
infidelity ;—it may succeed in creating such a feeling of 
disgust and indignation against the Church, as must 
ensure its overthrow,—its disestablishment and disen- 
dowment as a national institution,—its existence only as 
an opposing power against all the sense and intelligence 
of the nation.’ 

A third source of danger, and one in some respects 
more formidable than the others in its immediate bearing 
upon the security and permanence of our national Church, 


is the want of union and consolidation between ourselves 


1 The following remarks of Mr. 
Froude at the end of his ‘ History 
of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth,’ 
should be carefully considered by 
all honest and patriotic churchmen. 
‘<To the countries which rejected 
the Reformation, freedom never 
offered itself again in the dress of a 
purer religion. It returned upon 
them as Revolution, as the negation 
of allreligion. In Austria, in Spain, 
in France, in Italy, the Church has 
keen stripped step by step of its 
wealth, of its power, even of con- 
trol over the education of the 
people. Practical life has become 
secularized, and culture and intelli- 
gence have ceased to interest them- 
selves in a creed which they no 
longer believe. Doctrine may be 
piled upon doctrine ; the laity are 
contemptuously indifferent, and 
leave the priests in possession of the 


field, in which reasonable men have 
ceased to expect any good thing to 
If the same phe- 
nomena are beginning to be visible 
in England, they have appeared as 
yetin alessaggravated form. They 
are manifesting themselves at pre- 
sent coincident with the repudiation 
by the clergy of the principles of the 
Reformation ; and if the clergy are 
permitted to carry through their 
Catholic ‘revival,’ the divorce be- 
tween intelligence and Christianity 
will be as complete among our- 
selves as it is elsewhere ; but we 
have been exempted hitherto by 
the efforts of those brave men, 
whose perseverance and victory it 
has been my privilege in these pa- 
ges to describe ; and unless we are 
unworthy or degenerate, it is not 
yet too late for us to save our- 
selves.”’—Vol. vi. p. 594. - 


IPPLICGATION- AND CONCLUSION. Α35 


and other Christian bodies in our own country ; and the 
want of a close alliance, and even of friendly communion, 
with Churches in other lands. 

A desire for union with some other Churches has 
indeed of late years been increasingly felt in several 
quarters amongst us; and Hirenicons in word and act 
have been held forth, if haply either the Greek or the 
Roman portion of Christendom might be drawn nearer 
to us, and we to them. If such a union could be effected 
on the basis of acknowledged truth, and with a com- 
promise only on such non-essential questions as are. left 
undecided in the New Testament, to be ordered by the 
discretion of each Christian community, it would be a 
happy consummation, indeed. But as there seems at 
present no prospect of such a consummation, nor even 
any perceptible shadow of it appearing in the far dis- 
tance, it will be wise to attempt an easier and more 
promising task, and to endeavour to unite ourselves with 
Churches, which hold the same great doctrinal truths as 
our own, and differ only, if at all, in outward. form and 
government. 

A union or close alliance with the Presbyterian 
Churches in Scotland, and with other orthodox Pro- 
testant bodies, Episcopal or Presbyterian, on the Con- 
tinent, and in other parts, would necessarily strengthen 
our hands as well as theirs, and would greatly further 
the cause of apostolic Christianity throughout the world. 
And looking nearer home at the bodies of Christian men 
in England itself, as sound in the faith as we are, and 


3.4: APPLICATION ‘AND ‘CONCLUSION 


holding all or almost all the Articles of our Church, but 
unfortunately separated altogether from us into different 
sects and denominations, it is impossible to doubt that, 
if they could be united with us in one religious com- 
munity, it would prove an immense accession of strength 
to the Church, comprehending as it would within its 
borders almost the whole of the nation’s religious life. 

It is perfectly obvious that one of the greatest dangers 
which threaten the Established Church, is caused by the 
co-existence with it of large and powerful bodies of 
nonconformists, commanding respect by their numbers, 
intelligence, learning, and piety; and occupymg a 
position necessarily more or less antagonistic to it. 
These dissenting Churches are growing stronger year 
by year; and how great is their influence on the national 
mind and will is but too painfully evidenced by the 
recurrence of “ Religious Difficulties,” which from time 
to time impede or utterly prevent important measures, 
of which all approve, but which*can be accomplished 
only, if at all, with maimed and curtailed effect, from the 
antagonism existing between churchmanship and dissent. 
- Ever since the firm settlement of the reformed religion 
in this kingdom in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, it has 
been the desire of the wisest statesmen and of the most 
enlightened well-wishers to the country and the Church 
to consolidate the religious profession of the nation. 
And repeated attempts were made by them,—first, to 
prevent the extension of non-conformity, and afterwards 
to comprehend the great body of Protestant dissenters 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 335 


within the pale of the Church, by judicious alterations 
in its formularies. These laudable efforts were unfortu- 
nately frustrated by the obstinacy of the sovereign,— 
the reactionary violence of party feeling,—or the power 
And since the 


nearly two hun- 


and short-sightedness of the clergy. 
failure of the “Comprehension Act”? 
dred years ago, things have been allowed to take their 


course without any sustained and vigorous efforts to 


remedy the increasing evil. 


In the presence of these dangers, all of which are still 


1A grand opportunity was lost, 
and turned into a source of ruinous 
mischief, by the obstinacy of Queen 
Elizabeth in refusing all concession 
to the large, influential, and loyal 
portion of her subjects, who desired 
the principles of the Reformation to 
be legitimately carried out. Anda 
similar policy on the part of the 
crown, under the influence of the 
Romanizing and tyrannical Laud, 
issued in the violent outbreak of 
Puritanism, and in the overthrow of 
the Church and throne. 

At the Restoration much good 
might have been effected, if the 
violent reaction against the Presby- 
terian and Puritan party had not 
miserably blinded those who had 
the power. 

The last golden time for consoli- 
dating the sound religious faith and 
feeling of the nation was lost in the 
reign of William III., when his 
wisest ministers, supported by the 
king’s enlightened sentiments, en- 
deavoured in vain to pass the 


‘‘Comprehension Act.” 

‘Those distinguished statesmen 
did, however, make a noble, and in 
some respects a successful, struggle 
for the rights of conscience. Their 
wish was to bring the great body of 
the Protestant Dissenters within 
the pale of the Church by judicious 
alterations in the liturgy and the 
articles ; and to grant to those who 
still remained without that pale 
the most ample toleration. They 
framed a plan of comprehension 
which would have satisfied a great 
majority of the seceders ; and they 
proposed the complete abolition of 
that absurd and odious test, which 
after having been during a century 
and a half a scandal to the pious, 
and a laughing-stock to the pro- 
fane, was at length removed in our 
own time. The immense power of 
the clergy, and of the Tory gentry, 
frustrated these excellent designs.”’ 
—‘Macaulay’s Essays; ‘History 
of the Revolution,’ by Sir J. Mack- 
intosh. 


336 APPLICATION AND ‘CONCLUSION 


advancing with greater force as time goes on, it is surely 
the best policy to realize our actual position, to look the 
dangers in the face, and hopefully to adopt the best 
available means for averting them. And the path of 
policy is here the path of duty. For it is the duty 
of a national Church to extend its legitimate influence 
as widely as possible,—to hold forth divine truth in the 
clearest manner and to the greatest number,—and, as far 
as the manifestation of the truth can do it, to root itself 
in the affections of the people. 

A grave and temperate, but at the same time coura- 
geous and comprehensive, revision of our liturgy and 
our whole ecclesiastical system, with a view to wise 
and conservative reforms, and such changes. as are 
necessary for re-invigorating our Church life, seems 
therefore to be now imperatively demanded. Such a 
revision is required, not to gratify the wishes of this 
or that religious school or party in the Church, but in 
order to meet the real wants and circumstances of the 
present age,—to secure a less cumbrous and more real 
and reasonable discipline,—to strengthen the foundations 
of the Church in the national mind and conscience,—to 
enlarge its basis in conformity with a truly Christian 
and apostolic lberality,—and what is the greatest thing 
of all, to exhibit in the most distinct and impressive 
manner the great Christian truths which have been 
committed to its trust ;—and thus as far as possible to 
draw together into a compact and healthy union the 
religious faith and life of the nation. 


APPITCATION AND CONCLUSION. 337 


In attempting this great and needful work, it is not to 
the third and fourth centuries, or any subsequent 
period of ecclesiastical history, that we must look for 
our authorities and guides. The Church of England 
is not dependent on, or subject to, any other Church, 
or the Church of any other times. Nor is it an unneces- 
sary thing emphatically to affirm this independence, 
since practices alien to our Church have often of late 
been introduced, and defended, on the ground of such 
presumed subjection; and the canons of ancient coun- 
cils have been held forth, as if we were altogether 
bound to obey them. We have wisely retained good 
rules and customs of the earlier Church, as we have 
adopted many laws of imperial Rome; but we owe 
no more allegiance to the councils of the one, than we 
do to the civil edicts of the other. 

The authority, to which alone we should appeal, is 
that of the Divine Head of the whole Church, as it may 
be gathered from the words and actions of his inspired 
Apostles. The one safe and legitimate course in all our 
Church reforms is to go to the New Testament as our 
guide. The one great object of our desire should be to 
exhibit apostolic truth, as far as possible, in its apos- 
tolic form ; and never willingly to depart from the great 
principles of the Apostle’s teaching, when we may justly 
feel that we have full Christian liberty to deviate from 
their regulations, or to regulate what they left unruled. 

This course would be a noble following out of what 


was done by the noblest fathers of the English Reforma- 
7 22 


338 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


tion. With their determination to set forth clearly in 
the Church the truth of Christ, as far as they themselves 
could see and apprehend it, they wished no other con- 
sideration to interfere. And as further light and know- 
ledge were gained by them from the Scriptures, they did 
not hesitate to revise and alter what they had authorized 
at first. But, entangled as they necessarily were with 
fond notions about the ancient Church, from which it 
was scarcely possible that, without a miracle, they should 
have altogether cleared their minds, they bequeathed to 
their Church some difficulties and inconsistencies for 
those who came after them to remove. The truest 
honour which we can pay to their memory is to com- 
plete what they so auspiciously began, and in the same 
spirit as that in which they served their generation, to 
endeavour to benefit our own. 

Such a course avowedly adopted and honestly carried 
out is not only right in itself, whatever its results might 
be; but it is one, which more than any other possible 
alternative, would approve itself to the intelligence of 
the English people, win back their confidence, and 
restore their waning affection to the Church. The 
people of this country have not lost their love and 
reverence for the Scriptures; and reforms made in 
acknowledged conformity with Scripture teaching, with 
the express intention of bringing out that teaching more 
distinctly before the people, and not for state purposes, 
or to gratify political or religious party-spirit, would 
confirm instead of unsettling the best sentiments of the 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 339 


popular mind, and would have, at the very least, ἃ most 
wholesome effect upon the nation at large. 

_ In those things which no divine or apostolic authority 
has determined for us, which yet must be determined in 
some way in the practice of the Church, as also in num- 
berless details, which have necessarily been left to the 
judgment of each Christian community, a consideration 
of, though not a submission to, what our own, or other 
Churches in former times decreed, will be wise and 
needful. Christianity is a religion of facts and history, 
not of philosophic dogmas or abstract truths. And 
every modern Church has links connecting it with the 
past. Yet the history of ancient Churches is much more 
useful in holding out beacons to warn us of their errors, 
than in lighting up safe paths for us to follow in their 
steps. 

It is especially in non-essentials of this nature that 
times and circumstances—the ordinary feelings, habits, 
and social and intellectual conditions of our own age— 
should be considered ; and the Church should endeavour 
to meet the people upon their own ground, and to bring 
its ministrations into close contact and friendly sympathy 
with the national life. In these things also it is no 
wisdom, but the contrary, to require a strict and un- 
varying uniformity, which secures no useful object, and 
hinders rather than helps the general edification. 

But above all, sound practical common sense and 
honest truthfulness should be allowed full scope in 
ecclesiastical laws and regulations. The continuance 


340 APPLICATION AND “CONCLUSION. 


of shams and unrealities in dealing with sacred things, 
whatever excuses may be made for them, has necessarily 
a demoralising effect, and tends to make all religion be 
regarded as nothing but a cunningly devised fable. 


On looking then to the apostolic Church of the New 
Testament for direction in the religious and ecclesiastical 
questions, which it will be necessary to consider, two 
creat primary lessons are at once presented to us by the 
ecclesiastical polity of the Apostles, and may take pre- 
cedence of all the rest. These two important lessons 
relate to the ministry and the sacraments of the Church ; 
and they teach us that 

Sacerdotalism and Sacramentalism 


had no place in the Apostles’ practice, or encourage- 
ment from their authority. And consequently a return 
to the purity of the primitive Church will lead to the 
exclusion of these post-apostolic errors. 
Sacerdotalism.—With regard to the first of these, it 
was shown in a former lecture that the Christian 
ministry as instituted by the Apostles was certainly 
not a priesthood :—that sacerdotalism appeared at the 
beginning of the third century, and in the progress of its 
development brought im all the kindred notions of a 
priestly caste, a material altar, and a material sacrifice, 
which opened a wide gate to a flood of superstitions ; 
but all this had no foundation at all in the New Testa- 
ment or in the teaching and practice of the apostolic 
Church :—that the ordination of ministers by the 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 541 


Apostles and by others in their time did not confer a 
spiritual power, but an ecclesiastical authority :—and that 
there is no intimation whatever in the New Testament, 
that ministerial power or authority was to be exclusively 
transmitted through any particular line or succession of 
ordinations ; or that the validity of the sacraments is in 
any way derived from the fact of their being adminis- 
tered by one who has been so ordained; or that there 
is any such thing as “the grace of absolution” to be 
obtained exclusively or with any special effect from 
ministerial lips and hands ;—the doctrines of the special 
confession of sins to a priest, and of penance imposed 
and absolution given by him, being unknown to the 
Church of the Apostles, and invented in a later age. 

When compared with the apostolic view of the Chris- 
tian ministry, the formularies of our Church in their 
exhibition of the ministerial office, display an incon- 
sistency or incompleteness which ought not to have 
remained so long uncorrected.’ 


1The inconsistencies in our opposition to their recommenda- 


Prayer-book are principally owing 
to the fact that the Prayer-book of 
Queen Elizabeth’s reign, which is 
substantially the same as that now 
in use, was the result of a compro- 
mise. The policy of the queen, both 
from personal and from political 
motives, was to conciliate Papists, 
without herself submitting to the 
Pope. The commission appointed 
to prepare the book were ordered 
‘‘to favour the first Prayer-book of 
Edward VI. ;” and besides this, in 


tions, many important changés were 
introduced by the queen and her 
council, before the book was sub- 
mitted to Parliament. This com- 
promise so far succeeded that “the 
book was made so passable amongst 
the Papists, that for ten years they 
generally repaired to their parish 
churches without doubt or scru- 
ple.”—(Heylin, ‘ Hist. of Ref.’ ii. 
p. 286.) 

‘The reluctant commission of 
divines,’” says Bishop Burnet, 


342 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


“ Altars” having even in the reign of Edward VI. 
given way to “honest tables” in our Churches, while 
the word “altar” itself has been carefully expunged 
from our Prayer-book,—and the idea of a material sacri- 
fice having been removed from all the prescribed acts of 
our officiating ministers,—it needs only a completion of 
this good work to remove also whatever encourages the 
thought that a Christian presbyter is a priest, and 
as such possesses the power of granting priestly absolu- 
tion, of offering sacrifices, or of performing any other 
mediatorial work for Christian men.’ 

And when the idea of a priesthood is eliminated from 
the ministry of our Church, it will the more readily be 
seen that it is a thing which cannot be justified by any 
principle or practice of the primitive Church, that in our 
Ordination Service the words of Christ’s commission to 
His Apostles should be addressed to a presbyter, telling 
him at that solemn time, “whose sins thou dost forgive, 
they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they 
are retained ;” a form of words never applied in the New 


‘‘reckoned that if that generation 
could have been on any terms sepa- 
rated from the Papacy, though with 
allowances for many other supersti- 
tious conceits, it would once unite 
them all, and in the next age none 
of those should any more remain.” 

The next age came, and the next 
reign, but every petition for relief 
from those ‘‘ who sought it neither 
as factious men, nor as schismatics 
aiming at the dissolution of the 
state ecclesiastical, but as faithful 


servants of Christ, desiring and 
longing for the redress of divers 
abuses of the Church,’’ was met 
with refusal and persecution. In 
the mean while, as remarked by 
Bishop Pilkington ‘‘ pious persons 
lamented, atheists laughed, and the 
Papists blew the coals.” | 

1The insufficiency of the plea 
that the word ‘‘ priest’’ now means 
only Christian minister is shown in 
Lecture iii. 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 345 


Testament to any but those who received their authority 


immediately from Christ himself; never used in Ordina- 


tions for many centuries after the Apostles’ time; and 


whatever meaning the forgiveness and retention of sins 


may be supposed to bear 


, appropriate only to men 


endued with infallible knowledge and unerring judg- 


ment through the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 


τ Τί is remarkable that those, who 
from Richard Hooker to the present 
time, have undertaken to defend 
the use of these words in the ordi- 
nation of a presbyter, almost invari- 
ably miss the really gravest point of 
objection against them ; and satisfy 
themselves with explaining how the 
forgiveness of sins may, in some 
lawful sense, be included in the 
ministerial office. Even Archbishop 
Whately, usually so clear-sighted in 
an argument, falls into this error ; 
and thinks it enough to remark that, 
in forgiving sins as against God, the 
Apostles did so by proclaiming the 
good tidings of forgiveness to all 
who should accept the Gospel invi- 
tation, and admitting to baptism 
the attentive and professedly re- 
pentant and believing hearers ; 
and, consequently, that Christian 
ministers may in that sense forgive 
sins now. ‘‘ While,’ he continues, 
‘‘offences as against a Community 
may, it is plain, be pardoned, or 
pardon for them be withheld, by 
that community, or by those its 
officers who duly represent it.”— 
‘Kingdom of Christ Delineated,’ 
p. 98-101. 

But although it is at any rate very 


undesirable that words requiring so 
much explanation, and liable, as 
experience proves, to so much 
abuse, should be used in so solemn 
a service, the insuperable objection 
to them does not lie in any parti- 
cular meaning of the word ““ for- 
give,” but in the grant of infallibility 
contained in the emphatic words, 
Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they 
are forgiven. The Apostles, it is 
true, did not infallibly know the 
state of every man’s heart, but 
they did infallibly know, and uner- 
ringly declare, the terms of forgive- 
ness. They were empowered to 
announce, as by the word of God, 
and without the possibility of mis- 
take or the right of appeal, what 
men ‘‘must do to be saved ;’” and 
to say to those, who heartily re- 
ceived their word, that God had 
forgiven their sins. In their case, 
therefore, it might be truly said, 
‘¢ Whosesoever sins ye remit, they 
are remitted unto them.”’ But this ° 
cannot be so said of Christian min- 
isters now. They are not divinely 
inspired to teach infallibly whit 
men must do to obtain God’s for- 
giveness. They can and do make 
mistakes in their teaching, even on 


344 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


These words moreover but ill accord with the rest of 
the service, in which the work and duty of a Christian 
presbyter are excellently described with much truth and 
feeling, and in admirable conformity with what, as far as 
we can judge, were the work and duty of presbyters 
under the Apostles, and in the time which immediately 
succeeded them. 

This office, so solemn and responsible, requires the 
continual gift of divine grace, to teach, strengthen, guide, 
None but 
God, it has been truly said, can make a true minister 
Nothing but His Spirit can give 


and animate those who are appointed to it. 


of the New Testament. 
the requisite powers for such ministrations. To remind 
men of this with touching earnestness at their ordination 
is good indeed. Good and needful too it is that earnest 


and united prayer should then ask for an out-giving of 


the most important points. We 
may appeal against their declara- 
tion to the judgment of the Scrip- 
tures. The words, therefore, cannot 
truly be said to them, as they were 
to the Apostles. They cannot truly 
be said to them, without introduc- 
ing another condition which essen- 
tially alters their meaning ; namely, 
that the minister shall remit sins, 
or proclaim the terms of forgive- 
ness, inexact accordance with God’s 
written word. 

Even with regard to ecclesiastical 
forgiveness, or retention of sin, a 
presbyter in our Church has no au- 
thority to forgive or retain, except 


in certain cases and under certain 
restrictions, in connection with the 
Lord’s Supper. This is indeed 
what Hooker represents it mainly to 
consist in. 

But what words are these to ex- 
press so slight an exercise of min- 
isterial authority! To use expres- 
sions capable of supporting the 
most lofty pretensions, and then by 
explanations to attempt to bring 
them down to the most innocent 
and humble claims, is a delusion 
and a snare, which never ought to 
be allowed a place in the hallowed 
ordinances of a pure religion. 


APPIICATION. AND CONCLUSION. 


345 


heavenly grace for those who are admitted to such sacred 


duties. 


Such prayer was an apostolic practice ; and was 


retained in the Church even after many errors and un- 


apostolic notions had been associated with the idea of 


the ministry. And far better would it be to give a 


greater prominence to such prayer in our ordinal; in- 


stead of directing the bishop to use words,’ which imply 


1 The use of these words has 
been felt to be a stumbling-block 
for the last three hundred years. 
Hooker writes respecting them, ‘‘ A 
thing much stumbled at in the 
manner of giving orders, is our 
using those memorable words of our 
Lord and Saviour Christ, ‘Receive 
ye the Holy Ghost’”’ (‘ Kecl. Pol.’ 
vy. §77). “And most unsatisfactory 
is his defence of our thus using 
them, and hardly consistent with 
itself. 

Among the most recent de- 
fences of this formulary is the fol- 
lowing, contained in Dr. Blakeney’s 
valuable work, on the Book of 
Common Prayer. 

‘The third form, ‘Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost,’ is also novel in 
its use. There is, however, nothing 
objectionable in these words, as 
used in the English ordinal, when 
properly received. It consists οἵα 
prayer, an address, and a charge. 
‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost for the 
office of a priest in the Church of 
God, now committed unto thee by 
the imposition of our hands,’ is a 
prayer. Such was the description 
given of it by Whitgift, who must 
have known well the views of 


Archbishop Parker and the other 
bishops. He says, ‘To use these 
words, ‘‘ Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost,” in ordering of ministers, 
which Christ himself used in ap- 
pointing his Apostles, is no more 
ridiculous and blasphemous than 
it is to use the words that he used 
in the Supper ; but itis blasphemy 
thus outrageously to speak of the 
words of Christ. The bishop, by 
speaking these words, doth not take 
upon him to give the Holy Ghost, no 
more than he doth to remit sins, 
when he pronounceth the remission 
of sins; but by speaking these 
words of Christ. ‘‘ Receive the 
Holy Ghost ; whose sins soever ye 
remit they are remitted,” &., he 
doth show the principal duty of a 
minister, and assureth him of the 
assistance of God’s Holy Spirit, if he 
labour in the same accordingly.’ ”’ 
—Works of Whitgift, p. 489, vol. i. 
Pisa 

Of this and all other similar ex- 
planations it is sufficient to remark, 
that they really involve a condemna- 
tion of that which they are designed 
to defend. Interpretations sayour- 
ing so much of a non-natural sense, 
show what sort of language ought 


346 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


the giving of the Holy Spirit by his own power, when 
he lays his hands on those who are ordained ; and which 
authorise them in consequence of this gift to forgive or 
retain the sins of men. 

As long as such words continue to be so employed, it 
must be impossible to prevent the practice of the 
confessional in our Church, with any amount of its 
abominations, that individual presbyters may, in their 
discretion—or their indiscretion—think proper to intro- 
duce ; or indeed, to prevent the whole sacerdotalism of 
For he who 
is directed to forgive sins, or to withhold forgiveness, 


the Church of Rome from following with it. 


may reasonably urge the consequent necessity of indi- 
vidual confession to himself, or as it is commonly, called, 
“ auricular confession ; and he who is expressly declared 
to be a priest, cannot by any explanations be prevented 
from making for himself an altar, and a sacrifice, though 
none is provided for him in the Church. It must be in 
vain to expect that our Prayer-book, framed for the 
express purpose of including Romanists, should now be 
able without alteration to exclude Romanizers.* 


than the use of our present formula. 
1 Such imconsistencies as the 
form of absolution in ‘‘ The Visita- 


to be used, instead of justifying the 
present use. If a prayer is in- 
tended, why is there not a prayer 


actually used, which would need 
no elaborate explanation? A very 
excellent prayer might be selected 
with scarcely any alteration, from 
the ‘Constitutiones Apostolice,’ 
and to adopt it would be to return 
to a practice much more ancient 


tion of the Sick,” evidently intro- 
duced there to serve a temporary 
purpose in the transition time of 
the Reformation, will necessarily 
be removed, whenever a Scriptural 
revision of the Ordination Service 
is allowed to take effect. 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 347 


Sucramentalism.—There has been at all times a close 
connection between the estimation and use of the 
Christian sacraments, and the views entertained of 
the Christian ministry. Wherever a right understand- 
ing and Scriptural estimate of the ministerial office 
prevails, Sacramentalism, or an excessive, unscriptural, 
and therefore superstitious exaltation of the sacraments, 
cannot easily supersede the simple and healthy practice 
of the earliest Church. 

In that Church the baptism of those who repented of 
sin, and believed in Jesus as the divine Saviour, was 
regarded as being to them, “the washing of regenera- 
tion,” the beginning of a new spiritual life, and an im- 
parting of all the privileges of Christ’s disciples. While 
at the same time no virtue was believed to be inherent 
in the rite itself; no consecration of the water was 
made, as if to infuse into it some mystical power; no 
sacramental grace was supposed to pass forth through it 
from the minister who performed the service; neither is 
any instance of infant baptism recorded in the New 
Testament, nor any directions given respecting it. 

But from and after the beginning of the third century 
this sacrament was overloaded with a burden of cere- 
monies before unknown, all tending but too surely to 
produce the belief that a special virtue was conveyed 
into the water, and that it washed away sin by a super- 
natural efficacy of its own. 

The application of the consecrated ointment with 
other imposing rites still further encouraged in ordinary 


348 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


minds the notion that the Church possessed a species of 
magic, by which those who joined it could have their 
sins annihilated, and a spiritual power ex opere operato 
imparted to them. 

In like manner the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper 
was the most simple of all ordinances in the apostolic 
Church. No idea of a sacrifice was attached to its cele- 
bration ; no change was supposed to take place in the 
sacred elements; no virtue to be imparted to them or 
through them by the administrator; no presence of 
Christ in them, or with them, in any especial or peculiar 
manner. But in the post-apostolic Church all this was 
gradually changed, until at last the service was repre- 
sented as a sacrifice offered upon an altar by a priest, the 
elements were spoken of and worshipped, as if they | 
were Christ himself; and other gross superstitions 
naturally ensued. 

Through all these accumulations of error and delusion 
the Reformation had to clear its way, and if the heroic 
men who first undertook the work left some portions of 
the Herculean task unfinished, which those who followed 
neglected to complete, it becomes us, who still enjoy 
the fruits of their labours, not to shrink from a lighter 
labour of our own, that we may finish what they so 
happily began. 

The circumstances have been already noticed which 


led our early Church Reformers to examine and test the - 7 


then prevalent doctrines and practices of the Eucharistic 
service with more depth and earnestness than any other 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 349 


subject. And the happy results of their honest and 
courageous search for the truth have so far survived the 
compromising efforts of later hands, that but little is 
found in our Communion liturgy, which a Scriptural 
revision would mark with disapprobation. 

Here and there a few words would be corrected which 
from an apparent misunderstanding of certain texts are 
calculated to mislead the minds of ordinary hearers, and 
to give birth to unhealthy feelings of awe and dread, 
instead of a wholesome reverence and sacred joy. And 
the expressions which are sometimes represented as 
inculcating the Romish doctrines of the confessional and 
priestly absolution, though they cannot justly bear all 
that has been built upon them, should be freed from the 
ambiguity, which now attaches to them, and thus gives 
some apparent sanction to the assumption of sacerdotal 
powers. 


In dealing with the other sacrament the original 
framers of our baptismal formulary were not under the 
same urgent necessity to search the Scriptures for the 
solution of all questions connected with it, inasmuch as 
that ordinance had not been so cardinal a point of vital 
controversy, as that of the Lord’s Supper. And, con- 
sequently, they did not give us in every part so good an 
exposition of primitive doctrine and practice, as they did 
in their Communion service. 

They were, it is true, too well acquainted with the 
New Testament not to mark numerous unauthorized 


450 APPLICATION AWD \CONCLUSION 


and superstitious ceremonies, which had been added to 
the ordinance of baptism since the Apostles’ days. And 
their reverence for patristic antiquity did not prevent 
them from sweeping these away, in spite of the authority 
of the early Church. And this very circumstance plainly 
shows that they would have made further alterations 
besides these, if they had seen that there were still some 
things in their baptismal service not sufficiently con- 
formed to the written word of truth. 

The defects, which I venture to believe an unfettered 
and courageous appeal to apostolic authority, such as 
was made in the case of the other sacrament, would have 
removed, are particularly the consecration of the fontal 
water,—the taking for granted that the baptism of un- 
conscious infants must be in all respects the same as 
that of believing adults,—and the ecclesiastical fiction of 
the sponsorial promises. 

1. The prayer of consecration, “ Sanctify this water to 
the mystical washing away of sin,” encourages the old 
superstitious belief that a mysterious change is effected 
in the element, by means of which the sins of the bap- 
tized are removed ; and it is altogether unauthorized by 
the practice of the primitive Church. There is nothing 
of this objectionable nature in the Communion service. 
What is there called the prayer of consecration does not 
contain a single word indicative of any change in the 
bread and wine corresponding with this presumed change 
in the baptismal water. 

The explanation that these words in our administra- 


APPIACATION. AND CONCLUSION,” 38% 


tion of baptism only mean “that the water is separated 
from common use to a holy purpose,” is one of those 
interpretations which only show that the words are very 
inappropriate to the meaning which ought to be ex- 
pressed. 

2. The baptism of the children of believing parents, 
deriving its plea and justification from a reasonable 
application of apostolic authority, and Scripture pro- 
mises, to the circumstances of later times, requires no 
unwarranted assertions or assumptions for its wholesome 
administration. The language used in the New Testa- 
ment, when speaking of the baptism of believing men, 
does not justify the use of the very same terms in the 
baptism of unconscious infants. Words of dedication, of 
prayer, and of hope, may be lawful; but positive affirma- 
tion can hardly be justifiable, when it has no positive 
information or authority whereon to rest. Nor can it 
be right, in a solemn religious ceremony, any more than 
in secular transactions of common life, to assert that to 
be a fact, which we do not know to be so. 

The conduct of the churchmen of those times, when 
infant baptism is first known to have prevailed, was at 
any rate in this matter consistent with their creed. They 
believed baptism to be absolutely necessary for salvation, 
so that infants, dying without it, could not be saved— 
and they accordingly baptized them. They believed that 
through the consecrating and transforming power of cer- 
tain sacerdotal acts, the baptismal water with its holy oil 
and the sacred chrism were able, by their own inherent 


τῶ APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION 


virtue, to convey the pardon of sin and the gift of the 
Spirit ;—and they accordingly asserted that these same 
effects were produced in infants and in adults. But if 
we do not believe, as they did, that infants dying un- 
baptized must certainly perish, we cannot consistently 
regard infant baptism exactly as they regarded it. And 
if we do believe, as they did not, that the sacraments 
“are not physical but moral instruments of salvation,” 
and do not take effect from “any natural or supernatural 
quality in them,’—we cannot have the same reason as 
they had for supposing that the effect of baptism must 
be exactly the same in children asin men. As a moral 
instrument it must necessarily be imperfect in the infant 
recipient ; and it ought therefore to be so regarded, and 
the service for its administration should be framed ac- 
cordingly. 

3. The use of sponsors, to make declarations in the 
infant's name, probably originated at first, and has been 
since retained, from laudable motives ; yet it is not only 
destitute of all scriptural authority direct or inferred,— 
but the fiction, which it introduces, gives an appearance 
of unreality to the whole transaction, and has been fol- 
lowed to a large extent by a demoralizing effect. The 
more so, since, by a strange perversity, the parents, who 
are the most fitted by their position to answer for 
the baptized child, were, by our ecclesiastical laws, until 
very lately, excluded from the office. If infant baptism 
were in itself unlawful, the addition of the sponsorial 
promises could not make it right. If it be most agree- 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 53:3 


able with the institution of Christ, it needs not this 


addition to give it validity. 


Most right and proper would it be that parents should 


be called upon to undertake 


that children, presented for 


baptism, should be brought up “in all virtue and godli- 


? 


ness of living ; 


and far better adapted would such a 


practice be to secure a healthy reverence for the sacred 


ordinance, and to promote a 
lation at large, than is now 
our present service.’ 


1 Baptism is now very often re- 
garded by our upper and middle 
classes as a ceremony which it is 
the right thing to have performed ; 
—to be made an occasion for some 
family festivity ; for the giving of 
presents ; or for securing, through 
godfathers and godmothers, con- 
nections which may be useful to 
the child’s pecuniary interests : and 
by the lower classes, as a ceremony 
for giving the child a name, and a 
title to decent burial, if it should 
die ; or, at the best, as an unintel- 
ligible mysterious method of mak- 
ing the child a Christian ; while 
sponsors are sought for at random, 
to meet the ecclesiastical demand, 
without any regard to the engage- 
ments which they have to assume. 

Although the direct assertion 
that unbaptized children must 
perish, which appeared in the. 
Articles of 1536, has been re- 
moved from our formularies, yet 
an idea of a similar kind, all the 
more superstitious from its vague- 
ness, is kept up in our population, 


godly use of it in our popu- 
found to be the case with 


(1) by the Rubric, which affirms 
that, ‘‘It is certain by God’s word 
that children which are baptized, 
dying before they commit actual 
sin, are undoubtedly saved ;” 
though, by the way, God’s word 
says nothing whatever upon the 
subject ; (2) by parents being in- 
structed that, in case of illness 
baptism should be administered 
privately in houses, and in any 
way rather than not at all; (3) by 
unbaptized children being ex- 
cluded from Church burial. 

If parents were plainly taught 
that baptism is not a charm to be 
administered to dying infants, but 
a sacrament for those who are to 
live the Christian life; and that, 
when they bring their children to 
be baptized, they are themselves 
undertaking a Christian responsi- 
bility,—there might be a better 
hope that this sacred ordinance 
would be more duly appreciated, 
and made more beneficigl than it 
now is. 


23 


3.4 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


_ A Christian Church is doubtless at liberty to institute 
rites and ceremonies on its own authority, provided that 
nothing be enacted contrary to God’s word. Yet within | 
this limit many different degrees of wisdom, and un- 
wisdom, may find a place ; even if in the present instance 
it can be justly said that this limit has not been 
exceeded. 

With infant baptism administered as an ordinance of 
prayer and hope for the solemn dedication of the children 
of Christians to that Saviour, who suffered little chil- 
dren to come unto Him, and forbade them not ;—and 
with confirmation afterwards, as a “Sacramental Com- 
plement,” made a service for a real profession of per- 
sonal repentance, faith, and godly obedience, of those 
who had been baptized in childhood ;—our Church might 
secure all, and more than all, that can be gained by our 
present system, without any of the stumbling-blocks, 
which now often give occasion for disingenuous or non- 
natural interpretations, — perplexities for tender con- 
and disunion between those who ought to be 


sciences, 
united in Christian brotherhood. 

The most important lessons then, which may be 
learned from the apostolic Church for our own ecclesi- 
astical polity, are these which immediately relate to the 
ministry and the sacraments. But there are many others 
to be gathered from the same source, secondary only to 
these in their importance, and worthy of our serious 
consideration. Of these I desire especially to notice 
two, which are particularly applicable to some of the 


. 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 355 


wants of the present time; and which relate to our 
public worship, and to the position of the laity in our 
Church. 

As there is no command in the New Testament re- 
specting the use of extemporaneous prayers, or of the 
set forms of a prescribed liturgy, in public worship,— 
but both these modes have the sanction of antiquity, 
and every Church is left without the least restriction in 
this matter,—it is remarkable that within the compass 
of this island two national Churches should not only 
have made a different choice in these alternatives, but 
with a determined and blind partiality should have long 
adhered each to one of these two modes of worship 
exclusively, and have looked with positive abhorrence 
upon the other. Though either method has its own 
advantages, and its own defects, free prayer in the 
North, and a rigid unchangeable liturgy in the South, 
have been regarded almost as objects of vital and essen- 
tial faith by their respective communities. 

In our own Church the evils resulting from an un- 
deviating adherence to an inflexible form of prayer have 
long been felt, and have of late years sometimes been 
even in high places openly acknowledged. They have 
been aggravated in our case by the circumstance that 
our liturgy, however excellent, was compiled, and all its 
regulations and arrangements ordered, in a state of 
society and national life altogether different from the 
present; while a revision, which might make it more 
capable of meeting the requirements of modern times, 


336 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


has hitherto been effectually prevented, and seems to be 
regarded by some good men as if it were, something 
sacrilegious and profane. 

The opposite defects of the system, which μι 
excludes prescribed forms of prayer, have also of late 
been to some extent acknowledged in the Churches of 
Scotland; and a desire is beginning to be felt for a 
partial use of devotional formularies, where hitherto they 
had been looked upon as abominations.’ If such deep 
rooted prejudices are giving way, where they might have 
been the least expected to do so, will it be too much to 
hope that the Church of England, with its more liberal 
spirit, may be led to see that some degree of choice and 
freedom may be granted to its ministers and congregations 
in our public worship, without deviating from the earliest 
precedents,—without contravening any apostolic rule,— 


1 ‘Church Tendencies in Scot- 
land’ :— 

‘*Accustomed to popularity and 
influence, and possessing consi- 
derable flexibility of constitution, 
Presbyterianism has seldom shown 
itself unwilling or unable to retain 
the popular attachment by meet- 
ing the popular wants. And in 
the present instance, there are 
many tokens that Presbyterianism 
is seeking to adapt itself to the de- 
mand that has arisen for a larger 
infusion of life and beauty into its 
ritual. To the late Dr. Robert Lee 
belongs the credit of having first, 
and most clearly, seen what was 
wanted here, and of having set 


himself in the most effectual man- 
ner to supply it. His aim was, 
while retaining the vigour and 
thoroughness of the Scotch ideal 
of preaching, to borrow from Epis- 
copalianism the best elements of 
its liturgical method, while cor- 
recting some of its obvious faults. 
The protracted and somewhat an- 
gry controversy, which arose upon 
the introduction of his reforms, 
has issued substantially in the 
success of his ideas. The move- 
ment for the improvement of the 
Presbyterian ritual, . instead of 
being extinguished, has been con- 
firmed.”—Essay, by Rev. R. Wal- 
lace, D.D., in ‘Recess Studies.’ 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 357 


and with manifest advantage to general usefulness? 
There is at any rate no ground of objection, either in the 
Scriptures, or in reason, against a system, which would 
combine the advantages of both methods, without losing 
the time-honoured and beautiful prayers which we have 
inherited from the Church of old. 


The position of the laity in our Church, including their 
relations to the clerical order,—the duties incumbent on 
them,—the authority or influence which they ought to 
exercise,—and the aid which they may justly be ex- 
pected to afford for the general welfare of the Christian 
community,—has begun at last here and there to excite 
attention, and to engage some of the thoughts of earnest 
men.’ One of the most distinctive features of the 
apostolic Church was the great importance of the part 
assigned to the lay members of it. In the first century, 
and for several centuries beyond it, they elected, or at 


least freely expressed their approval or disapproval of 


1 «Tt cannot be necessary to 
dwell at any length on the circum- 
stances of the times which are 
bringing into the foreground this 
question of the place of the laity in 
Church government. Some persons 
are attracted towards it from one 
direction, some from another ; but 
the thoughts of very many seem to 
converge towards the same point. 
Is 1ῦ too much to say that it is the 
great Church question of the day ?”’ 

‘¢The old machinery of the Es- 
tablishment is perceived to be very 
much out of gear. Those who are 


most anxious for the retention of 
the great blessing of the union of 
‘Church and State,’ are also those 
who are looking about most 
anxiously for some means of re- 
adjusting the relations which sub- 
sist between the two bodies, now 
more than ever distinct and sepa- 
rate. Itis in the introduction of 
the Church laity in some form or 
other that they are beginning to 
see a way out of their difficulties.” 
—Essay IV. in ‘The Church and 
the Age,’ on ‘The Place of the 
Laity in Church Government.’ 


aus. APPLICATION AND ‘CONCLUSION. 


those who were ordained to minister among them; 
and they appear at first to have exercised the power of 
deposing offending presbyters. In the maintenance also 
of Church discipline in all its several forms, and in ques- 
tions of faith and doctrine requiring any dogmatic 
decision, the laity in the New Testament period held an 
influential position, and were called upon to give their 
voice and sanction to all ecclesiastical proceedings. 
Besides this their mutual sympathies and kindly fellow- 
ship, kept up by the Agape, or other Christian meetings, 
—the words of exhortation, warning, and encouragement, 
which they did not shrink from addressing to each other, 
—and their constant and ready help in all works of 
charity and kindness,—were powerful means in the early 
Church for strengthening and cherishing the religious life. 

In our Church, on the other hand, a great cause of 
weakness and of failure has been the almost utter absence 
of lay influence and work. The general tendency of our 
system, in its actual working at any rate, has been to 
place each clergyman alone as the only motive power 
of Godliness in his parish; and to assign nothing to 
the parishioners to do... His public ministrations in the — 
parish Church, and his visits from house to house to the 
sick and the whole within his cure, were all that seems 
to have been looked upon as needful; and anything 


1 The office of Churchwardens, the Church. The system to which 
whatever it may once have been, they belong, if it ever was effectual 
is now quite powerless for any- for much good, has now, at any 
thing beyond what relates to the rate, become obsolete. 
material fabric and furniture of ~ 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 356 


beyond this was until lately by our ecclesiastical authori- 
ties discouraged, if not forbidden. It is no wonder that 
such a course of action has greatly failed to reach the 
masses of our population; and that not only much 
spiritual destitution, but much rampant irreligion, prevails 
in our parishes. Praiseworthy efforts have been made 
by good men to remedy this lamented state of things. 
By additional Churches and clergy, Scripture readers, 
Bible women, and other similar means, something has 
been done to encounter the most glaring symptoms of 
this our English heathenism. And cottage lectures, 
Bible classes, and communicants’ meetings, are some- 
times used to supplement the necessarily imperfect in- 
structions of the Prayer-book and the pulpit. But all 
these are at the best but partial, and are more or less 
spasmodic in their action and effects. 

1 venture to think that something more systematic 
is needed; and that a return, as far as may be prac- 
ticable, to the apostolic plan, by giving the laity a more 
prominent place in our Church,—by showing them that 
‘they have Christian work to do, and by encouraging 
them to take an interest in doing it,—is what our present 
condition most especially requires. And without pre- 
tending here to trace the details of such a reform, or to 
assert that it could immediately be brought into full 
operation; some good might be done at once by giving 
congregations a voice in the appointment of their minis- 
ters; some good might be done by reviving the practice 
of frequently assembling together the earnest Christians 


360 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


in our -parishes under the direction and superintendence 
of their clergy, so that they might have some amount 
of real Christian fellowship with each other, a thing now 
entirely banished from our Church system. 

Each assembly of this kind would be the really visible 
Church,—the axxAycia,—in every place, spreading its 
Christian influence all around it. The several members 
would have opportunities of mutual exhortation and 
counsel. Unity would be promoted. They would learn 
to know and care more for each other, to sympathise 
with each others’ trials, and to assist each other in tem- 
poral and spiritual things. The clergyman also would 
know more of his people and they of him. He would be 
better able to direct his ministrations among them. All 
useful plans and machinery for religious instruction, edi- 
fication, and general benevolence, could thus be carried 
out, and kept in operation without his being overbur- 
dened, or obliged to leave the work half-done. And by 
the force of a healthy public opinion created through 
the instrumentality of this assembly, or local Church, 
immorality and ungodliness might be put to shame, and 
a considerable amount of Christian discipline might be 
exercised, even without the intervention and enforcement 
of any ecclesiastical laws. The great obstacles to the 
useful working of any such plan, which are presented by 
the artificial state of modern society, and by the utter 
want of discipline which has so long prevailed in our 
Church, might, it is to be hoped, be overcome by tact 
and patience. But a broad, liberal, and scriptural reform 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 361 


of our Church laws and formularies would be essential 
to its success,’ 

But finally, in dealing with such questions and all 
others of a similar nature, it is needful to bear in mind 
one great principle of constant application in everything 
connected with our religion,—a principle which ought to 
influence the whole course of our ecclesiastical polity, 
all regulations of the Church, and every administration 
of its ordinances ; yes, and to influence all the members 
of any Christian community in their use of their Church’s 
ministrations. 

This principle is the great master-truth, that the true 
Church of Christ,—the body of which he is the head,— 
“the fulness of him who filleth all in all,’—to which 
alone all the promises and blessings of the kingdom of 
God belong,—is an invisible society, consisting of all those 
who are really united to Christ, and who, from union 


1 Dr. Owen, on Heb. x. 25, ‘* Not 
forsaking the assembling of your- 
selves together,’ remarks, — 

‘¢ These assemblie& were of two 
sorts: 1. Stated, on the Lord’s 
Day, or first;day of the week. 2. 
Occasional, as the duties or occa- 
sions of the Church did require 
(1 Cor. v. 4). The end of these 
assemblies was twofold. 150. The 
due performance of all solemn, 
stated, orderly, evangelical worship 
in prayer, preaching of the word, 
singing of psalms, and the admin- 
istration of the sacraments. 2nd. 
The exercise-of discipline, or the 
watch of the Church over its 


members, with respect to their 
walking and conversation, that in 
all things it be such as becomes the 
gospel, and giving no offence. So 
to admonish, exhort, and provoke 
one another to love and good 
works; to comfort, establish and 
encourage them that were afilict- 
ed, or persecuted ; to relieve the 
poor, &c. Such assemblies were 
constantly observed in the first 
Churches ; how they came to be 
lost is not unknown, though how 
they may and ought to be revived, 
is difficult.’’-—Owen’s ‘ Works,’ voL 
XXxvii. i 


362. APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


with Him as the head, are living members of His mys- 
tical body ; and further, that the visible Catholic Church 
of professing Christians, or any particular branch and 
portion of it, can be called Christ’s body only in a 
secondary, inferior, and imperfect sense; this name de- 
scribing only its professed intention, and not the reality 
of its actual being. 

The fundamental mistake of confounding the visible 
and invisible together in thought and word,—and thus 
regarding any particular Church as being to all within 
its sphere the very body of Christ, out of which there is 
no safety or Christian privilege,—was an error into which, 
as we have seen, the Church began to fall towards the 
end of the second century, and which all the tendencies 
of that time gradually deepened and extended. This 
error, which manifested itself in the throwing outward of 
the whole conception of the Church, helped greatly to 
encourage the notion of a priesthood, and to give ἃ false 
view of the Christian sacraments, and of the general 
relation of the Church’s office and work to those who 
were within and without its pale. And such false views 
strengthened in their turn the original misapprehension ; 
and thus intertwined with each other in the growth of 
error, they have continued to act and re-act upon one 
another ever since. 

Most desirable and necessary is it therefore that, in 
all attempts at ecclesiastical improvement, it should be 
distinctly kept in view, and distinctly displayed to view, 
that Christ, and not the Church, is the author of spiritual 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. .363 


life; and therefore, that it is not our being members of 
the Church which unites us with Christ, but our being 
united with Christ makes us true members of His Church; 
—that every visible Church on earth is necessarily a 
mixed body of real and nominal Christians ;—that out- 


. ward admission to it and communion with it is of no 


spiritual profit, without the inward union with Christ him- 
self ;—and that separation from it involves no spiritual 
loss, if the inward union with Christ is still preserved. 

It follows from this, that the highest function of any 
Church is to bring those to Christ, who have not yet 
been united to Him; and to edify and encourage those, 
who are in Him, to adorn His doctrine in their lives : 
—that the ministers of a Church, as its representative 
officers, can have no more power than the community, 
which they represent, itself possesses, and consequently 
have no force or virtue in their office, except so far as 
they hold forth the Saviour to men, and so far as the 
Saviour thus held forth is received, as the immediate 
source of spiritual life and strength, by those for whom 
their ministrations are performed :—and that the sacra- 
ments also, administered in and by the Church at Christ’s 
commandment, derive all their efficacy from Him, and 
that too from their being means of spiritual communica- 
tion with Him, and not from any virtue imparted to 
them, or through them, by the Church office-bearers, by 
whom they are administered. 

When these truths are clearly apprehended, the New 
Testament account of the Clerical order and its minis- 


- 


κοῦ. APPLIICATTON AND ΘΟ ΘΕ 


trations is seen to be consistent with them, and shows 
that they were admirably adapted for maintaining in 
the visible Christian communities, an abiding sense of the 
work assigned to them in the divine economy of the 
Gospel dispensation. And then warned by the lament- 
able errors, which grew up and strengthened themselves 
in after times from this apostolic theory of the Church 
being obscured and lost, we shall all the more readily 
turn back again to the primitive times, and endeavour to 
regain our true position. 

Not only then will our Church office-bearers be no 
longer regarded as priests usurping the place of Christ, 
with unauthorised imitations of his mediatorial work ; 
but all the deceptive adjuncts and consequences of 
sacerdotalism, will also be easily discarded, or even fall 
off of themselves. The notions that Episcopacy is essen- 
tially necessary for a Church, and that a mysterious 
power, transmitted through an unbroken chain of Epis- 
copal ordinations, can alone make inen Christian minis- 
ters, will be unable to hold their ground. The use of 
esthetic stimulants to devotion, appealing to the senses 
and imagination by means of architectural ornamenta- 
tion, pictures, images, processions, crosses, and other 
symbolical objects, or of histrionic displays of ministerial 
acts with vestments, incense, artificial lights, prostra- 
tions, and fantastic gestures, and with the whole array 
of priesteraft, which now, as in more ancient times, 
will be seen to be 


beguile the ignorant and unwary, 
not only no aids to Christian doctrine and devotion, 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 36s 


but positive hindrances to them. Since in proportion 
as such things answer the purpose for which they are 
intended, and engage the attention and affect the feelings, 
to the same extent do they shut out Gospel truth, and 
hide Christ from the spirit of the worshipper. 

Not only then will the grosser sacramentalism of 
medieval Christianity, with its materialized views of 
Christ’s spiritual ordinances, be no longer possible among 
us, but there will be less danger of our trusting to sacra- 
ments instead of Christ,—of our putting baptism with 
water for regeneration by the Spirit,—and the Eucharistic 
elements received into our hands and mouths for the 
Saviour received into our hearts; less danger of our 
shrinking from the Lord’s Table with a superstitious 
dread, or with equally superstitious confidence trusting 
to coming to it in vain. 

Then it may be hoped that the artificial sanctity of 
consecrated places, and the excellence or antiquity of a 
form of prayer, will not be thought to make a heartless 
worship acceptable, or to be necessary for that which is 
sincere ; and that the separation between the clerical 
and lay portions of the Church being found to be less 
wide and deep, than the theory of a priesthood suggests, 
both portions will be enabled to co-operate together, 
without detracting from the respect due to the one, or 
assigning a false position to the pther. 

And then, too, will less difficulty be felt in effecting 
a, friendly union with orthodox foreign Churches, whether 
episcopal or otherwise; and should our attempts at 


366 APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. 


“comprehension” in our own land not succeed so far 
as to bring back and consolidate with ourselves large 
bodies of non-conformists,—there will be nothing at any 
rate to prevent relations of a most friendly nature be- 
tween us and our dissenting Churches which “hold the 
head” as firmly as we do, instead of the present anta- 
gonism and unchristian estrangement.’ 


I have thus endeavoured to trace, though very imper- 
fectly, the visible features of the Church as it appears in 
the New Testament; and to point out some of the 
If 
in this dangerous time, when the truth of Christ has so 


lessons which we may learn from them for ourselves. 


many assailants on all sides, and when our beloved 
Church, which ought to be, under the divine blessing, a 
tower of strength against them for the nation at large, 


1 Even within the Church of 
Rome there is rising in the minds 
of learned and moderate men a 
desire to hold outa friendly hand 
to other Churches than their own, 
and to join with them in the war- 
fare against sin and error under 
the banner of Christ, instead of 
anathematizing them as heretics. 
How much more may we be will- 
ing to co-operate with those with 
whom we have no cause of dif- 
ference, but some points of a non- 
essential character, and who are 
already associated with us in the 
ties of citizenship and close vici- 
nity. The words with which the 
distinguished Romanist Déllinger 


concludes his treatise on ‘‘ The 
Church and the Churches,” read 
to usa wholesome lesson. ‘‘ Ten- 
dons la main @ toutes les sectes qui 
croient au Christ, pour soutenir 
avec elles une lutte défensive 
contre toutes les tendances sub- 
versives de notre époque. Ainsi 
que l’a dit M. de Radowitz ; nous 
voyons les esprits se ranger sous 
deux drapeaux, dont l’un porte le 
nom du Christ, fils de Dieu, tandis 
que Vautre réunit autour de lui 
tous ceux qui regardent ce nom 
comme un scandale ou une folie.” 
—French translation by L’Abbé A. 
Bayle. 


APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. °367 


seems itself to be tottermg and ready to fall from its 
national position—I may have been able to suggest 
some useful thought, or to stir any hearts and hands to 
some hopeful exertion for the religious welfare of our 
country,— but if not, I could not refrain from saying 
what I have said; and with whatever feebleness and 
whatever failure, liberavi animam meam. 7 


APPENDICES. 


24 


νῶν 
ΓΑ i +0 ὁ ~*~ 
a ἐξ fh 


APPENDEX A: 


Some Practices ΑΝ JDocTRINES COMMONLY CONSIDERED 
RoMAnisTIc, BUT IN REALITY SUCH AS EXISTED IN THE 
EARLY POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, AND WERE ONLY RETAINED 
AND CONTINUED IN THE CHuRCH OF Rome. 


Ν Υ doctrines and practices, unscriptural, dangerous, 
and superstitious, are commonly supposed by Protes- 
tant Christians to be characteristic of Romanism, while in 
reality they existed in the Church before or at the end of 
the fourth century ; and were by the Church of Rome only 
retained,—sometimes, it is true, with the principles involved 
in them rather more fully developed,—but in some instances, 
on the other hand, with their attendant evils moderated 
and partially corrected. 

To speak distinctly, my allegation is, that the Church sys- 
tem of the Nicene period, 1.6., in the third and fourth centu- 
ries, or before the death of Augustin, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
and other contemporary Fathers, was in all essential re- 
spects the same as that of the more modern Romanism ; and 
hence that in all consistency, if we protest against the one, 
we must protest against the other ; if we denounce the one 
as having departed from the faith once delivered to the 
saints, and having overlaid the formal orthodoxy of the 
acknowledged creeds with a mass of superstition, our de- 
nunciation must extend equally to the other. And, contra- 
riwise, if the earlier system is admired and accepted, the 

(871) 


372 APPENDIX A. 


same admiration and acceptance cannot be justly withheld 
from its later counterpart. 

To substantiate this allegation, I shall enumerate some of 
the principal doctrines or practices which marked the 
Church of the earlier time ; giving under each of them one 
or two proofs from the best contemporary authorities ; 
proofs which might in almost all the cases be indefinitely 
multiplied in a wider space ; but which even in the narrow 
limits of an Appendix will sufficiently establish what they 
are adduced to prove. 

I. The mixed chalice and the sign of the cross.—I will refer 
in the first place to certain practices innocent and indiffer- 
ent enough in themselves, and when they were first intro- 
duced, but afterwards associated with superstition ; and of 
these I will instance the “mixed chalice” and the “sign of 
the cross.” 

(a.) The custom of mixing water with the wine at the 
celebration of the Lord’s Supper is alluded to by Justin 
Martyr (a.p. 150), without any comment, and in a manner 
which seems to show that it was then no novelty. His words 
are, οἱ καλούμενοι map ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἐκαότῳ τῶν 
παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριδσθέντος ἄρτου, παὲ 
οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος. ‘Apol.’ i. 85. And again, “4pros 
προόδφέρεται, καὶ otvos καὶ ὕδωρ. ‘Apol.’ 1. 87. 

This custom probably arose from the circumstance that 
in those times, and particularly in the Hast, it was a usual 
thing to drink wine mixed with water ; and as such mixed 
wine was drunk at the Passover, it was reasonably conclu- 
ded that at the original institution of this sacrament min- 
gled wine had been used. This simple and natural explana- 
tion however seemed too trivial in the following century, 
when a taste for higher mystical interpretations prevailed ; 
and the mixing of the water with the wine was then said to 
denote, or even to effect, the union of the communicants 
with Christ ; so that without the water the efficacy of the 


APPENDIX A. 373 


sacrament would be seriously impaired. Thus an innocent 
custom was turned into a superstition, encouraging a low, 
materialistic conception of this spiritual service. 

Cyprian (a.p. 250) says, “ Videmus in aqua populum in- 
telligi, in vino vero sanguinem Christi. Quando autem in 
calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, et cre- 
dentium plebs ei, in quem credidit, copulatur ef conjungitur. 
. . . Sic in sanctificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola 
non potest, quo modo. nec vinum solum potest. Nam si 
vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine 
nobis.” Epist. 63, ad Ceecilium. 

(b.) The sign of the cross, at first perhaps a simple 
emblem of the Christian faith (as it is used by us in the 
administration of baptism), and a symbol of recognition 
among Christians, had become in Tertullian’s time (a.D. 
200) a perpetually repeated, and consequently almost un- 
meaning, ceremony in the Christian family life. On getting 
up or going to bed, on putting on their clothes or their 
shoes, on walking out or sitting down, at table or at the 
bath, in short in every act or movement, they made the 
sign of the cross upon their forehead. ‘Ad omnem pro- 
eressum atque promotum, ad vestitum et calceatum, ad 
lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, δα sedilia, 
queecunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo 
terimus.” De Corona Milttis, § 3. 

In the following century it appears conspicuously in all 
the public ceremonies of the Church, to the efficacy of which 
it was supposed greatly to contribute. Thus even the con- 
secrated ointment which was poured upon the baptismal 
water in the font must be made to form this sign. 426 καὶ 
ἡ τοῦ βαπτίόματος χάρις τελειοῦται διὰ τοῦ μύρου 
δὅταυροειδ DS ἐπιχεομένου τῷ βαπτιότηρίῳω παρὰ τοῦ Ἱεράρ- 
χου. Dionysius, ‘ Eccles. Hierarch.,’ iv. 10. And Chrysostom 
informs us that all the sacred acts were accomplished by 
means of it, whether in our regeneration, in our nourishment 


374 APPENDIX A. 


by the mystic food of the Eucharist, in Ordination, or any 
other hallowed rite. πάντα δὲ αὐτοῦ τελεῖται tad nad 
ἡμᾶς: κἂν ἀναγεννηθῆναι δέῃ, σταυρὸς TAPAYIVETAL UAV TAA- 
φῆναι τὴν μυστικὴν ἐπείνην τροφήν" παν χειροτονηθῆναι, κἂν 
ὁτιοῦν ἕτερον ποιῆδαι, τοῦτο τῆς νίκης ἡμῖν παρίσταται 
σύμβολον. Hom., ὅδ, ἴῃ Matt. And in the same homily, 
Chrysostom assures his hearers that this sign, devoutly 
made upon the face, is most efficacious in private use for 
driving away unclean spirits, no one of which will dare to 
come near when it sees this token of Christ’s victory. 
Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἅπλως τῷ δακτύλῳ éyyaparrew αὐτὸν δεῖ: ἀλλὰ 
πρότερον τῇ προαιρέδει μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς πίστεως: κἂν οὕτως 
ἐντυπώσῃς αὐτὸν τῇ ὄψει, οὐδεὶς ἐγγύς ὅου ὅτῆναι δυνήδεται 
τῶν ἀκαθάρτων δαιμόνων, ὁρῶν τὴν μάχαιραν ἐν n τὴν 
πληγὴν ἔλαβεν. And this continued to be one great use 
of the sign all through the middle ages. 


II. Sacerdotalism.—There is no indication in the New 
Testament that the Christian ministry was in the apostolic 
age regarded as a priesthood, either in name or in Office ; 
nor are there any traces of such an opinion in the Fathers 
of the second century. But from and after the beginning 
of the third century a great change is seen. The ministers 
of the Church were then looked upon as priests, a media- 
ting, sacrificing, and absolving order, as the priesthood is 
now in the Church of Rome. 

The bishop was then a high-priest, dpyzepevs or summus 
sacerdos ; the presbyter, a priest, iepevs or sacerdos ; and the 
deacon, a Levite, λευέτης or levita. The Lord’s table was 
turned into an aliar; and the Lord’s Supper became a 
sacrifice, an imitation or repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. 

The first Christian writer who shows that this change 
had taken place is Tertullian (ap. 200). Thus, “ Dandi 
baptismum quidem habet jus swmmus sacerdos, qui est 
episcopus.” ‘De Bapt.’ §17. And, “Nonne solennior erit 


APPENDIX A. 375 


statio tua, si ad aram Dei steteris? utrumque salvum est, 
et participatio sacrificii, et executio officii.” ‘ De Orat.’ ὃ 14. 

After Tertullian every patristic author abounds with 
evidence of the establishment of this sacerdotal system, and 
of the manner in which it operated in the Church. The 
work of the Christian ministry became a priestcraft. The 
priest was a mediator between God and. the Christian laity, 
who were taught that he stood to them in the place of 
Christ,—was His representative and vicegerent,—and _ per- 
formed his office upon earth. Thus Cyprian (a.p. 250), 
““Neque enim aliunde hereses oborte sunt, aut nata sunt 
schismata, quam inde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, 
nec unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex 
vice Christi cogitatur.” Epist. 65, ad Cornelium. And again, 
“ Utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod 
Christus fecit imitatur.” Epist. 63, ad Ceeilium. Ambrose 
(a.D. 370), “In ecclesia propter reverentiam Episcopalem 
non habeat caput liberum, sed velamine tectum, nec habeat 
potestatum loquendi, quia Episcopus personam habet Christi. 
Quasi ergo ante judicem sic ante Episcopum, quia vicarius 
Domini est, propter reatiis originem subjecta debet videri.” 
Com. in 1 Cor. xi. 10. 

Hence it was the priest, and the power of his office which, 
according to the teaching of the Nicene Church, gave effect 
to every Christian ordinance. It was the bishop as high- 
priest who consecrated the “ holy oil,” and gave it power to 
cast out devils from the catechumen ; and who in a similar 
manner supplied the “mystic ointment ” which helped to 
impart to the baptismal water its regenerating power, and 
which after baptism gave the Holy Spirit. It was the priest 
who regenerated men in baptism, who made the body and 
blood of Christ in the “ awful sacrifice” of the Eucharist, 
and who acceptably offered up Christ upon the “altar ” for 
the quick and dead. It was by the voice of the priests that. 
the sentence of excommunication might be pronounced, and 


376 APPENDIX A. 


re-admission into Church communion be obtained. And 
even after death the priest’s prayers and offerings were still 
effectual for good, and extended their power beyond the 
grave. | 

In one respect, however, the priestcraft of the Nicene age 
had not departed so far from apostolic truth, as did that of 
the Church of Rome at a later time. The practice of con- 
fession and absolution after the Romish manner had no 
existence in the third and fourth centuries. See Appendix C. 


III. Sacramentalism.—The sacerdotalism of the third and 
fourth centuries was no mere question of words and names, 
but a deep and essential change introduced into the Church 
system ; and one of its first effects was to graft upon the 
divine and simple religion of the New Testament an elabo- 
rate sacramentalism not surpassed in its superstitions by the 
darkest ages of the Papacy. 

Both the sacraments were turned into awful mysteries. 
In both, the opus operatum doctrine was taught in the 
broadest and most unqualified manner. In both, the 
elements were affirmed to have an actual, objective, physical, 
miraculous change wrought in them through the Holy 
Spirit brought down into them by the power of the Church, 
and of the priest as its functionary ; by which they pro- 
duced their marvellous effects, and were regarded by people 
in general more as the instruments of magic rites, than the 
symbols of a religious service. 

1. Baptism.—Thus in baptism, besides all the other com- 
plicated ceremonies, through which the catechumens had to 
pass, the holy ointment consecrated by a bishop, and so 
possessed of celestial virtues, was poured upon the water in 
the form of a cross, and this together with the prayer of the 
officiating priest produced, as it was affirmed, a change in 
its very nature which they called “transelementation,” and 
gave the water an inherent power to wash away sin. Thus 


APPENDIX A. 377 


Cyril of Alexandria (a.p. 412 says), ὅνπερ γὰρ τρόπον ro ἐν 
τοῖς λέβησιν ἐκχεόμενον ὕδωρ, ταῖς τοῦ πυρὸς ὁμιλῖσαν ἀρμαῖς 
τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἀναμάττεται, οὕτω διὰ τῆς τοῦ Πνευ- 
ματος ἐνεργείας, τὸ αἰσθητὸν ὕδωρ πρὸς θείαν τινὰ παὲ 
ἀπόρρητον μετασδτοιχειοῦται δύναμιν, ἁγιάζει τε λοιπὸν 
τοὺς ἐν οἷς ἂν γένοιτο. Com.inJohan.iii.5. For additional 


quotations, see Lecture VII. 


2. The Lord’s Supper.—In the Lord’s Supper an actual, 
objective, physical change was said to be effected in the 
bread and wine; which, with much variety of expression, 
were declared to be no longer mere bread and wine, but to 
be, to become, to be made, to be transformed into, to be trans- 
elemented into, the body and blood of Christ. Thus, 

Cyril of Jerusalem (a.p. 350) says, “the bread of the 
Eucharist is no longer mere bread, but the body of Christ,” 
Ὁ ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαριότίας μετὰ τὴν ἐπώιλησιν τοῦ ayior 
Πνεύματος οὐκέτι ἄρτος λιτὸς, ἀλλὰ δῶμα Χριόδτοῦ. ‘ Catech. 
Mystag.’ iii. 3. 

Ambrose (a.p. 370) says, “the bread becomes the flesh of 
Christ,” Panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum ; 
ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. De 
Sacram. iv. 4. 

And Gregory Nyssen (a.p. 350), Ὁ ἄρτος πάλιν ἄρτος ἐστὶ 
τέως κοινὸς, HAN ὅταν τὸ μυστήριον ἱερουργήσῃ, δῶμα 
Χριότου λέγεται τε nai γίνεται. ‘De Bapt. Christi,’ vol. 


11. 369. 

Jerome (a.p. 370) says, that “by the prayers of the 
priests the body and blood of Christ are made.” Quid 
patitur mensarum et viduarum minister, ut supra eos tumi- 
dus se efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus et sanguis 
conficttur. Ep. 85, ad νας. And Cyril of Jerusalem says 
that “we pray God to send forth the Holy Spirit upon the 
elements that He may make them the body and blood of 


378 APPENDIX A. 


Christ.” παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεὸν τὸ ἅγιον 
Πνεῦμα ἐξαποστεῖλαι ἐπὲ τὰ προκείμενα, ἵνα ποιήδῃ τὸν μὲν 
ἄρτον δῶμα Χριστοῦ, τὸν δὲ οἷνον αἷμα Χριστοῦ. “ Catech. 
Mystag.’ v. 

Ambrose says that “the elements are transformed into 
flesh and blood.” Quotiescunque sacramenta sumimus, 
que per sacre orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur 
et sanguinem, mortem Domini annunciamus. De Fide, v. 

Gregory Nyssen says, “Christ in this sacrament mingles 
Himself with the bodies of those who believe, in order that 
man may partake of immortality,” and he then adds, ταῦτα 
δὲ δίδωσι TH τῆς εὐλογίας δυνάμει πρὸς ἐκεῖνο MET AGT OL- 
χειώδας τῶν φαινομένων τὴν φύσιν---“ by transelementing 
the nature of the visible elements”—a physical change. 
‘Orat. Catech.’ ὃ 87. 

In connection with the belief that an actual change was 
effected in the nature or substance of the Eucharistic ele- 
ments may be mentioned the declaration of Chrysostom 
that when taken into the body they did not undergo the 
same natural processes as took place with ordinary food— 
My ὅτι ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἴδῃς, he exclaims, μηδ᾽ ὅτι οἶνος ἐότι 
γομίσῃς: οὐ yap εἷς αἱ λοιπαὶ βρώδεις εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα χωρεῖ: 
ἄπαγε! μὴ τοῦτο νόει: ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ πηρὸς πυρὲ προδομιλήδας 
οὐδὲν ἀπουσιάζει, οὐδὲν περιόδόδεύει, οὕτω καὶ ὧδε νόμιζε 
δσυναναλίόπεσθαι τὰ μυστήρια τῇ τοῦ δωματος οὐσίᾳ. De 
Peenitentia,’ Hom. ix. 

(a.) All the consequences and logical inferences which 
follow from the doctrine of transubstantiation were unhesi- 
tatingly adopted. Thus, 

The body and blood of Christ were said to lie upon the 
altar, to be carried in the sacred vessels, to be taken into the 
hands, to be tasted in the mouth of the communicant. : 

Corpus Christi est in altari. Ambrose, ‘De Sacram.’ iv. 2. 

Qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat in 
yitro, Jerome, Hp. ad Rustic. 


APPENDIX A. 379 


Κοιλάνας τὴν παλάμην δέχου τὸ δῶμα τοῦ Xpicrov. Cyril 
of Jerusalem, ‘ Catech. Mystag.’ v. 18. 

Ovx ἄρτον πελεύονται γεύσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντιτύπου δώματος 
παὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριότοῦ. Ibid. v. 17. 

(b.) Further than this, they said that Christ himself lay 
upon the altar,—was sacrificed,—was handled. The service 
was called a fearful mystery, a most awful sacrifice, angels 
standing round with awe, &c. 

Zv δὲ θυσίᾳ προόδίων, ἣν καὶ ἄγγελοι φρίττουσι... 
ἐεφερομένης τῆς θυσίας, καἱτοῦ Χριότοῦ τεθυμένον,... 
ὅταν ἔδῃς ἀνελκόμενα τὰ ἀμφίθυρα, τότε νόμισον διαστέλ- 
λεόθαι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἄνωθεν καὶ κατιέναι τοὺς ἀγγέλους. 
Chrysostom, Hom. 24, in 1 Cor. 

Ὅταν δὲ naire Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγτον καλῇ καὶ τὴν φρικωδεστάτην 
ἐπιτελῇ θυσίαν, καὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ πάντων συνεχῶς EMVan- 
τηται δεόπότου (and takes in his hands the Lord of the 
universe!) ... τότε καὶ ἄγγελοι meprectyuacs τῷ iepet, καὶ 
ουρανέίων δυνάμεων ἅπαν τάγμα βοᾷ, καὶ 6 περὶ τὸ θυσια- 
ὅτήριον πληροῦται τόπος εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ κειμένου. Idem 
‘de Sacerdotio,’ vi. 4. Could the most determined believer 
in transubstantiation say more than this? 

(c.) Adoration of the Host—Such words as those just 
quoted imply and justify the practice of Host-worship ; but 
such adoration is also expressly mentioned. Thus— 

Cyril of Jerusalem in his directions to communicants as to 
the manner in which they should receive the bread and wine 
implies an adoration of them throughout, and then expressly 
says that they must take the cup bending down in a posture 
of worship and adoration—un ἀνατείνων τὰς χεῖρας, ἀλλὰ 
κύπτων HAL τρόπῳ προόδκμυνήδεως καὶ CEBAGMATOS. 
‘Catech. Mystag.’ v. 18. 

And Theodoret (a. p. 390-447) says of the bread and wine, 
“They are understood and believed to be the very things 
which they have become, and are worshipped as being the 


380 APPENDIX A. 


very things which they are believed to be.” γοεῖται δε 
ἅπερ ἐγένετο καὶ MIOTEVETAL, καὶ προόκπυνεῖται ὡς ἐκεῖνα 
ὄντα ἅπερ πιότεύεται.. “ Adv. Kutych. Dial.’ p. 85. 

(d.) Various superstitions naturally followed. Thus— 

The vessels and veils, &c., used in the Communion service © 
were venerated as most holy, and none but the sacred hands 
of priests or deacons were allowed to touch them. And 
Jerome says of them, Ex consortio corporis et sanguinis 


Domini eadem qua corpus ejus et sanguis majestate vene- 


randa. Lp. ad Theoph. 


It was considered a dreadful thing for a particle of the 
bread or a drop of the wine to fall; and a crime if this 


happened through negligence. 


Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram 


anxie patimur. 


Tertullian, ‘De Cor. Milt.’ ὃ 3. 


Reos enim vos creditis et recte creditis, si quid inde per 


negligentiam decidat. 


Origen, Hom. 18, in Exod. 


Quanta sollicitudine observamus quando nobis corpus 


1 The following extract from the 
judgment of the Court of Arches, 
delivered July 23rd 1870, in the 
case of Sheppard v. Rev. W. J. E. 
Bennett, shows how modern High- 
churchmen receive the doctrine of 
the ‘‘ Adoration of the Host.”” And 
if the teaching of the Nicene 
Church is to be our authority, 
their practice is the.right one. 

“ΒΥ the expressions, ‘ the real, 
actual, and visible presence of the 
Lord upon the altars of our 
‘churches,’ and, ‘who myself adore 
and teach the people to adore the 
consecrated elements, believing 
Christ to be in them, believing 
that under their veil is the sacred 
body and blood of my Lord and 


Saviour Jesus Christ,’ I have no 
doubt that Mr. Bennett has contra- 
vened the plain meaning and clear 
intent of the formularies of the 
Church.” 

But in a later edition of his book, 
Mr. Bennett substituted for the 
above expressions, — ‘‘ The real, 
actual, presence of our Lord under 
the form of bread and wine upon 
the altars of our churches,” and 
‘“‘who myself adore and teach the 
people to adore Christ present in 
the elements, under the form of 
bread and wine.” And _ this 
amended form of MHost-worship 
satisfied the Court of Arches, and 
Mr. Bennett was accordingly ac- 
quitted on this charge. 


APPENDIX A. 381 


Christi ministratur, ut nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in 
terram cadat. Augustin, Hom. 26 and 50. 

The directions of Cyril (already referred to) for preventing 
this dreadful thing, and at the same time worshipping the 
elements, are those from which modern High-church clergy- 
men take their instructions for communicants. They ure as 
follows. ‘ When you come forward [to receive the bread], do 
not come with your hands stretched out or your fingers sepa- 
rated from each other ; but make your left hand a throne for 
your right hand, which is going to receive your King ; and so 
making a cavity in your palm receive the body of Christ ; and 
after sanctifying your eyes by touching them with it, partake 
of the holy body, taking care not to lose any of it ; for if you 
were to do so, it would be as if you lost a portion of one of 
your own limbs. Then, after partaking of the body of Christ, 
come forward for the cup of His blood, not stretching your 
hands upwards, but bending down in the posture of worship 
and adoration, and be sanctified by partaking of the blood of 
Christ. And also sanctify your eyes, and forehead, and your 
other organs of sense by touching them with some of the 
moisture that is on your lips.” 

Προδιὼν δὺν μὴ τεταμένοις τοῖς τῶν χειρῶν παρποῖς 
προδέρχου, μηδὲ διῃρημένοις τοῖς δακτύλοις ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀριό- 
repav θρόνον ποιήσας τῇ δεξιᾷ, ὡς μελλουόδῃβαδσιλέα δέχεσθαι, 
καὶ ποιλάνας τὴν παλάμην δέχου τὸ δῶμα τοῦ Χριότοῦ, 
ἐπιλένων τὸ ᾿Αμήν: μετ᾽ ἀσφαλείας οὖν ἀγιάδας τους 
ὀφθαλμοὺς τῇ ἐπαφῇ τοῦ ἁγίου δώματος μεταλάμβανε, 
προδέχων un παραπολέόδσῃς ἐξ: τούτου αὐτοῦ, ὅπερ yap ἐὰν 
ἀπολέσῃς, τούτῳ οἷς ἀπὸ otuEtov δηλονότι ἐζημιώθης μέλους... 

. Eira μετὰ τὸ πκοινωνῆσαί τι τοῦ δώματος Χριστοῦ, 
προδέρχου καὶ τῷ ποτηρίῳ τοῦ αἵματος, μὴ ἀνατείνων TAS 
χεῖρας, ἀλλὰ κύπτων, καὶ τρόπῳ προδκυνήδεως καὶ CEBAG- 
ματος, λέγων τὸ “Aunv, a&y1alov καὶ ém τοῦ αἵματος 
μεταλαμβάνων Χριστοῦ, ἔτι δὲ τῆς νοτίδος ἐνούσης τοῖς 
χείλεσί Gov χερόὶν ἐπαφώμενος καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ μέτωπον, 


382 APPENDIX: A. 


wat τὰ λοιπὰ ayiate αἰσθητήρια. ‘Catech. Mystag.’ 
v. 18. 

(e.) But this was not the worst. The consecrated elements 
were “reserved,” and used for the purposes of the grossest 
superstition, which was kept up by means of marvellous 
legends of pretended miracles recorded and propagated by 
the highest authorities in the Church. 

A piece of the consecrated bread put into the mouth of the 
dying was a sure viaticum, or safe passport for the soul. See 
the story of Serapion, an old man who had lapsed in a time of 
persecution, and not yet been re-admitted into the Church. 
When at the point of death he sent a boy for the priest. The 
priest was ill, and could not come. But the boy brought back 
a piece of the “reserved” bread, and dropped it into the old 
man’s mouth, who, having been up to that moment marvel- 
lously preserved in life, thereupon immediately died in 
peace. The story is mentioned, not as anything extra- 
ordinary or unusual, in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria, 
given by Eusebius, ‘ H. E.’ vi. 44. 

Tt was only going a little beyond this, when people gave 
this sacrament to the dead. This was forbidden by the 
Council of Carthage (a. p. 397); and Chrysostom spoke 
against it. It was discountenanced therefore by the author- 
ities ; but the “ orthodox ” practice gave occasion for it. 

Cyprian mentions with satisfaction that a woman who 
kept “the Lord’s Sacrament” in a box for her daily use, 
joined in some idol-worship, whereupon, when she attempted 
afterwards to open the box, a fire burst out from it with 
such fury that she did not dare to touch it again, 

Quum quedam mulier arcam suam in qua Domini sanctum 
fuit, &c. See his treatise ‘De Lapsis ; where he also gives 
another marvellous story of an infant who had been taken by 
its nurse to a heathen sacrifice, and was then brought to 
Church to receive the Eucharist. 

Tn the following century nothing was thought too gross to 


APPENDIX A. 383 


be used in order to inculcate a belief in the magical or mira- 
culous power of the consecrated elements. Thus Ambrose, in 
a solemn oration on the death of his brother Satyrus, trium- 
phantly relates that Satyrus being shipwrecked in a storm at’ 
sea, had a piece of “ the divine sacrament” tied round his neck 
in a priest’s scarf, and having thus cast himself into the waves 
was thereby preserved, without needing so much as a plank to 
support him. Satyrus at that time had not been baptized, 
but convinced by this miracle, determined to be so, Divinum 
illud fidelium sacramentum .. . ligari fecit in orario et 
orarium involvit collo, atque ita se dejecit in mare, non re- 
quirens de navis compage resolutam tabulam cui supernatans 
juvaretur. Ambrose adds the obvious lesson to be learned 
from this, Qui tantum mysterii celestis involuti in orario 
presidium fuisset expertus, quantum arbitrabatur, si ore 
-sumeret et toto pectoris hauriret arcano! ‘De Excessu 
Satyrt, ὃ 43. 


IV. Prayers and offerings for the Dead.—First mentioned 
by Tertullian, who speaks of a wife praying for her dead 
husband, and presenting offerings for him (in the Eucharist) 
on the anniversaries of his death. Pro anima ejus orat et 
refrigerium interim appostulat ei, et in prima resurrectione 
consortium, et offert annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. De 
Monogam., § 10. 

Cyprian mentions the same custom, and forbids the offer- 
ing of “the sacrifice ” for those who had committed certain 
offences ;—Si quis hoc fecisset non offerretur pro 60, nec 
sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebraretur. Ep. 66. Ad. 
Cler. et Pleb. Furnit. 

Arnobius (4.p. 300) says it was the custom in Churches 
to pray for the dead, as well as the living. Pax cunctis et 
venia postulatur, ... et resolutis corporum vinctione. 
B. iv. end. 

Cyril of Jerusalem declares such prayers and offerings to 


384 APPENDIX A. 


be of the greatest benefit to the dead. Ταύτην προσφέρομέν 
Got θυσίαν. .. καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν προπεποιμημέν ων ἁγίων πατέρων 
καὶ ἐπτιόκόπων, HAL πάντων ἅπλως τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν προπεκποιμημέ- 
VGOV μεγίστην ὄνησιν πιότεύοντες ἔσεσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς, ὑπὲρ 
ὧν ἡ δέησις ἀναφέρεται τῆς ἁγίας παὶ φρικωδεστάτης 
προκειμένης θυσίας. ‘Catech. Mystag.’ v. 6. 

These prayers and sacrifices at first were for the righteous 
dead : afterwards for all, whether good or bad. Thus Epi- 
phanius (a.p. 370) disputes at large against the opinions of 
Aerius, who objected to prayers for the dead ; and says that 
such prayers were beneficial,_that they were offered for the 
just and for sinners, asking for God’s mercy for the latter, 
&C., ὠφελεῖ δὲ καὶ ἡ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν γενομένη εὐχὴ; εἰ καὶ τὰ 
ὅλα τῶν αἰτιαμάτων μὴ ἀπορκόπτει: AAN οὖν γε διὰ τὸ 
πολλάκις ἐν κόσμῳ ἡμᾶς ὄντας ὄφάλλεσθαι ἀκουσίως TE Hai 
ἑκουσίως, ἵνα τὸ ἐντελέδστερον δημανθῇ: καὶ yap δικαίων 
ποιούμεθα τὴν μνήμην, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτωλων: ὑπὲρ μὲν 
ἁὡμαρτώλων ὑπὲρ ἐλέους Θεοῦ δεόμενοι. ‘Heres.’ 75. 
Aerianos. 

Augustin makes an elaborate declaration to show that the 
souls of the dead are benefited by the prayers.and sacrifices 
of the living. ‘“ Neque negandum est defunctorum animas 
pietate suorum viventium relevari, quum pro illis sacrifi- 
cium mediatoris offertur, vel eleemosyne in ecclesia fiunt.” 
He then divides professing Christians into three classes 
whom he call ,— 

1. Valde boni. 2. Non valde mali. 3. Valde mali. And 
the prayers and sacrifices offered for them have a different 
effect accordingly. For the “very good,” they are thanks- 
givings ; for the “not very bad,” they are propitiations, and 
either procure their entire pardon, or at any rate alleviate 
their condemnation ; for the “very bad,” even if they are 
of no benefit to the dead, they are a certain consolation to 
the living. “Quum ergo sacrificia sive altaris, sive qua 
rumcunque eleemosynarum pro baptizatis defunctis omnibus 


APPENDIX ~.A. 385 


offeruntur, provalde bonis gratiarum actiones sunt; pro 
non valde malis propitiationes sunt; pro valde malis, 
etiamsi nulla sunt adjumenta mortuorum, qualescunque 
vivorum consolationes sunt. Quibus autem prosunt, aut ad 
hoe prosunt, ut sit plena remissio, aut certe tolerabilior fiat 
ipsa damnatio.” Encheiridion, ὃ 110. 

Here then was a distinct beginning of the doctrine of 
Purgatory. 

The Gospel doctrine of pardon and justification by faith 
in Christ had now been lost in the Church. Justification 
was by baptism,*which gave a perfect remission of all pre- 
vious. sins ; but after this it was by works; 1.6., by sinless 
obedience; this failing, the sacrifice of the Eucharist, 
penance, and especially almsgiving, were remedies, either 
partial or complete. 

Monks and nuns, who were true to their vows, might be 
considered perfectly righteous ; but ordinary persons must 
need some purgation after their death. Thus Augustin 
prayed for the soul of his mother Monica, because he dared 
not say that from the time when she was regenerated by 
baptism, no word came out of her mouth contrary to God’s 
commands. 

Several of the Fathers also believed that there would be 
“a fire of purgation” at the Day of Judgment through 
which all must pass. Thus Origen says of this fire, “Ego 
puto quod et post resurrectionem e mortuis indigeamus 
sacramento eluente nos atque purgante.” Hom. 14. in 
Lueam. 


V. Parvon of sin and Jvstirication by Atmscivine and 
other good works.—After baptism, by which all past sins 
were forgiven, men had to keep themselves in sinless per- 
fection, or else to obtain the pardon of their sins, and 
justification in the sight of God, by their own works and 
doings ; among which a very conspicuous place was assigned 


25 


386 APPENDIX A. 


to almsgiving. Cyprian wrote ἃ treatise, “De opere et 
eleemosynis,” in which he declares in the broadest possible 
manner, supporting his assertions with quotations from the 
Apocrypha, that “any kind of sin after baptism is washed 
away by almsgiving.” Ut sordes postmodum quascunque 
contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus : that “prayer is good 
with fasting and almsgiving, because almsgiving delivers 
from death, and purges away our sins.” Bona est oratio cum 
jejunio et eleemosyna, quia eleemosyna a morte liberat et 
ipsa purgat peccata. 

Chrysostom teaches the same doctrine in his more rhe- 
torical style. ‘ Almsgiving is the queen of virtues, the best 
advocate, quickly lifting men up to heaven.” —“ If you have 
ever so many sins, with its advocacy, you need not fear; it 
demands back a debt for you; whatever are your sins it 
outweighs them.” ἐλεημοσύνην βασιλίδα τῶν ἀρετῶν, τὴν 
ταχέως avayovoay εἰς ras apidas τῶν οὐρανῶν τουΐς 
ἀνθρώπους, δυνήγορον τὴν αἀρίότην. Κἂν πολλὰς ἔχῃς 
ἁμαρτίας, ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ 2 συνήγορος, μὴ φοβοῦ,--- χρέος 
αἀπαιτεῖ,--ὅσας ἔχεις ἁμαρτίας ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη Gov βαρεὶ τὰς 


ὅλας. Serm. ii. on Repentance. 


VI. Intercession of Saints and prayers to them.—Cyyril of 
Jerusalem, describing the common practice of the Church, 
relates that at the “Eucharistic sacrifice” patriarchs, pro- 
phets, apostles, and martyrs, are mentioned, in order that 
by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our sup- 
plications. Ταύτην προόφέρομέν Cor θυσίαν, ἵνα μνημονεύω- 
μὲν καὶ τῶν προπεποιμημένων πρῶτον πατριαρχῶν, 
προφητῶν, ἀποστόλων, μαρτύρων, ὅπως ὁ Θεὸς εὐχαῖς 
χυτῶν καὶ πρεόδβείαις προδδέξηται ἡμῶν τὴν δέησιν. 
‘Catech. Mystag.’ v. 6. 

Gregory Nazianzen (a.p. 370) in an Oration in praise of 
his dead father, delivered in the presence of Basil, says that 
his father can do more now for those, whom he has left be- 


APPENDIX A. 387 


hind, by his intercession, than he could before by his instruc- 
tions. Πείθομαι Se ὅτι uai rH πρεσβείᾳ νῦν μᾶλλον, ἢ 
πρότερον τῇ διδαόδκαλίᾳ, ὅδω καὶ μᾶλλον ἐγγίζει Θεῷ. And 
he then addresses a direct prayer to his dead father, “Make 
known to us in what glory thou art, and what light surrounds 
thee. . . . Receive me speedily to the same abode as thou 
art in thyself; . . . and guide in safety the whole flock, and 
all the chief-priests—.e., bishops—whose father thou wert 
called, and especially me, who have been governed by thy 
fatherly and spiritual authority.” Γνώριδον ἡμῖν ποῦ ποτε 
εἶ δόξης, καὶ TO περὶ δὲ φῶς. . .. καμὲ ταῖς αὐταῖς δέξαι 
δκηναῖς, ἢ μηδὲν ἔτι, ἢ winpd τῷ Bio τούτῳ κακοπαθήδοντα. 

ες Mat διεξάγοις ἀκινδύνως madera μὲν ἅπασαν ποίμνην 
καὶ παντας ἀρχιερεῖς, ὧν ἐκλήθης πατὴρ, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ τὸν 
ὑπὸ Gov βιασθέντα uai τυραννηθέντα πατρικῶς τε uai 
πνευματικῶς, ὡς ἂν μὴ πάντα GE μεμφοίμην τῆς τυρανγίδος. 
Orat. 19, § 44. | 

Paulinus of Nola, a man of great note, affords a marked 
example of saint-worship in the fourth century. He was 
present in a.p. 379 or 380 at a festival in honour of Saint Felix 
at Nola, and then dedicated his vows and heart to that 
saint — : 

“ΕἸΣ quo solennibus istis 
Coram vota tibi, coram mea corda dicavi.” 

In 394 he retired to Nola, the place of his patron saint, and 
devoted hirhself to a life of asceticism and almsgiving. His 
“ Natales,” poems written every year in honour of the mar- 
tyrdom of Felix, most distinctly show that he worshipped 
this saint. Thus in Natalis i. he thus addresses him— 


‘‘Vectus in ethereum sine sanguine Martyr honorem, 
O pater, O domine, indignis licet annue servis. 


Seu placeat telluris iter, comes aggere tuto 
Esto tuis ; seu magna tui fiducia longo 
Suadeat ire mari, da currere mollibus undis, 
Et famulis famulos a puppi surgere ventos.”’ 


388 APPENDIX A. 


See a further account of Paulinus in ‘Vigilantius and his 
times,’ by Dr. Gilly, who well remarks, “It is impossible by 
any sophistry, or by any form of words or artifice of inter- 
pretation to rescue the memory of Paulinus from the charge 
of saint-worship.” P. 79. 


VII. Martotarry.—The actual worship of the Virgin 
Mary does not appear to have been prevalent until after the 
end of the fourth century ; yet it had begun before that date. 
Some time before this it had become usual to speak of her 
in exaggerated terms ; marvellous stories were related of 
her ; such as that which is recorded by Gregory Nyssen in 
his life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, to whom, as he was lying 
awake by night, the Virgin Mary paid a visit, and desired 
the Apostle John, who accompanied her, to explain to him 
the true faith, about which he had been in doubt. 

The extravagant notions which were then entertained 
respecting the exalted, angelic, holiness of virginity natu- 
rally led to the unscriptural belief that the mother of Jesus 
Was ἀεὶ παρθενος, ever-virgin. And those who did not receive 
this dogma were denouncéd as heretics under the formi- 


dable name of “ Antidicomarianites ”—i.e., adversaries of - 


Mary. Epiphanius in writing against them (‘ Heres.’ 78), 
expresses with much rhetorical declamation, his amazement 
at their madness in uttering such blasphemous insults 
against her, as to assert that she was really the wife of 
Joseph and the mother of other children besides Jesus. 
In his desire to do her honour, he suggests, without posi- 
tively affirming, that she never died; but obtained immor- 
tality without passing through death. Od πάντως ὁρίζομαι 
τοῦτο καὶ ov λέγω ὅτι ἀθάνατος ἔμεινεν" AAN οὔτε διαβε- 
βαιοῦμαι εἰ τέθνηκεν. Thus exhibiting the earliest form of 
the later Romish doctrine of the “ Assumption.” 

There were some at this time who worshipped her as a 
goddess, and transferred to her the old Eastern worship of 


MEPPENDIX A. 389 


the “queen of heaven ;” the women offering her cakes 
(κολλυρίδ ες), a8 mentioned in Jeremiah vi. 18 and xliv. 19, 
whence they were called “ Collyridians.” 

Epiphanius, to do him justice, denounces this idolatry in 
strong terms ; vai μὴν ἅγιον ἦν τὸ σῶμα τῆς Μαρίας, --οὐ 
μὴν θεος nai δὴ πάρθενος ἦν ἡ Πάρθενος καὶ τετιμημένη, AAN 
ovu εἰς προόπύνησιν ἡμῖν δοθεῖσα. ‘Heres.’ 79, 4. 

But notwithstanding this, actual worship was addressed 
to her, without calling her a goddess, as it was to other 
saints : and Gregory Nazianzen in his oration on Cyprian 
relates without any disapprobation that a nun, whom 
Cyprian in his youth pursued with violent attentions, 
effectually prayed for help to the Virgin Mary. Τὴν πάρθε- 


γον Μαρίαν ἱκετεύουσα βοηθῆδαι παρθένῳ κινδυνευούσῃ. 


Orat. 18. 


VU. .The worship of pictures and images, éc.—The use 
of pictures in Churches as helps to devotion must have been 
attempted at or before the very beginning of the fourth 
century ; since the practice is forbidden by the Council of 
Elvira (4.p. 805), for the very proper reason, lest objects of 
worship should be painted on the walls. Placuit picturas 
in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in 
parietibus depingatur. Can. 36. But at the end of the 
century, Paulinus had pictures painted on the walls of his 
Church at Nola; because, as he said, the rude multitude, 
who flocked to the festival of the martyr (Felix) required 
such helps to devotion, and might be thus drawn away 
from the rioting and drunkenness which were too apt to 
occur on such occasions. The introduction of images, and 
the direct worship of them and of pictures, were of a later 
date. But Paulinus enriched his shrine with relics, relics 
of the Apostles Andrew and Thomas, of John the Baptist, 
and St. Luke, and pieces of the bones of numerous martyrs, 
im which he believed great virtue to reside. In this case 


300 APPENDIX A. 


the beginnings only or germ of the Romish practices are 
seen. 


IX. Asceticism.—The monstrous asceticism of monks and 
anchorites in the fourth century could not be surpassed, if it 
was ever equalled, by anything of this kind in the later 
Church of Rome. To renounce every tie and every duty of 
social life, and every trace of civilization and humanity, and 
to macerate the body with savage fasting, sleeplessness, or 
other tortures, was universally regarded at the Nicene period 
as the very height of holiness, the attainment of superhu- 
man perfection. | 

To show in any detail what this much admired life was in 
which men were looked upon as angels, because they sunk 
themselves lower than brute beasts, would be impossible in 
this short space. I give three quotations, of which one 
suggests the false principle of asceticism, and the others 
exhibit small specimens of its practice. 

Gregory Nazianzen says of the nun above mentioned, 
that she had recourse to fasting and lying on the ground, 
that she might destroy her beauty, and at the same time 
propitiate God ; for by nothing in the world is God so much 
conciliated as by maceration of the body. Οὐδενὶ γὰρ οὕτω 
πάντων ὡς nanxonabeta θεραπεύεται Θεός. Orat. 18. 


Chrysostom, describing the mode of life pursued by some 
monks who endeavoured honestly to keep their vows, says 
that they fled to the tops of mountains, and lived in solitary 
huts, with their body pent in bands of iron and clothed with 
sackcloth, passing their time i: continual fasting, watching, 
and every kind of severe discipline, if haply they might by 
such means as these gain the victory over their natural 
feelings. Πολλοὶ καὶ διδήρῳ ἅπαν TO δῶμα καταδήδσαντες, 
καὶ σάκκῳ περιβαλόντες, καὶ πρὸς τὰς ὀρῶν ἀναδραμόντες 
HOPUMAS, καὶ νηστείᾳ δσυζῶντες SINVEHEL, UAL πανγυχίσι, HEL 


ἀγρυπνίαις, καὶ πᾶδαν ἐπιδειμνύμενοι GuAnpaywyiav, HAL 


APPENDIX. A. 391 


γυναιξὶν ἀπάδσαις ἀπαγορεύδαντες ἐπιβαίνειν tov δωματίου 
UAL τῆς καλύβης THS ἑαυτῶν, καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ παῖιδα- 
γωγοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς μόλις περιγίνονται τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν 
μανίας. Vol. i. p. 228. Hd. Benedict., entitled πρὸς τοὺς 
ἔχοντας παρθένους GUY ELGAHHT OVS. 

Basil describes the life of an anchorite with whom he was 
acquainted, and whose ascetic discipline he greatly admired. 
This man deserted his wife and home, and fied to Jerusa- 
lem, where he lived in solitude devoting himself to divine 
contemplation. He wore rough sackcloth next his skin, and 
bound his loins with so hard a girdle that it almost crushed 
his bones. He fasted to such an extent that he had the 
appearance of a skeleton, the soft parts of his body being 
dried up, and drawn in close to the back-bone, while his 
ribs projected over them like the roof of a house. In the 
mean time he passed his nights in confessing his sins to 
God, with streams of tears running down over his beard. 
Suvparlov μέν Cov τὴν πολυπίνδυνον περιουσίαν, οἴκου 
θεραπείαν καὶ δυνοίπου ὁμιλίαν ἀπαρνούμενος.. . πκατέδραμες 
ἐπὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα, ἔνθα Gor καὶ αὐτὸς δυνδιατρίβων ἐμαπά- 
pilov τῶν ἀθλητιπῶν πόνων, ὅτε ἑβδοματικοὶς κύηλοις νῆστις 
διατελῶν Θεῷ προδεφιλοδόφεις,. . . ἡσυχίαν καὶ μον οτροπίαν 
δεαυτῷ ἐφαρμόσας. . .. DSauxnw δὲ τραχεῖ τὸ δῶμα Gov 
διανύττων, παὶ ζώνῃ GudAnpd τὴν ὀόφυν Gov περιόφίγγων 
καρτερικῶς TA SOTA Gov διέθλιβες: λαγόνας δὲ ταῖς ἐνδείαις 
ποιλαίνων μέχρι τῶν νωτιαίων μερῶν UMEXAVVYWOAS. ... 
ἔνδοθεν δὲ τας λαπάρας δικύας δίκην ὑφελκύδας τοῖς 
γεφριτιποῖς χωρίοις προδκολλᾶσθαι ἐβιαζου, ὅλην δὲ τὴν 
δαρκὸς πιμελὴν ἐγοιενώσας τοὺς τῶν ὑπογαστρίων ὀχέτους 
γενναίως ἐξήρανας ... τα πλευριτικὰ μέρη ὥσπερ τινὰ 
ὄτέγης ἐξοχὴν τοῖς ὀμφάλου μέρεσιν ἐπεόπίαζες.. Κατα ras 
VUUTEPLVAS ὥρας ἀνθομολογούμενος τῷ Θεῷ τοῖς τῶν δακρύων 
ὀχετοῖς τὴν γενειάδα ἕμβροχον καθωμάλιζες. ἘΠ. 45, ad 
Monachum. 

“The extant information bearing on this subject is not 


302 APPENDIX A. 


scanty, and it is furnished explicitly, or it is incidentally 
confirmed, by Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, 
Athanasius, Palladius, Sulpitius Severus, Cassian, Jerome, 
Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, Isidore, Ephrem ; some of 
whom furnish the minutest details of the ‘ seraphic life,’ and 
all speak of it in terms of wonder and admiration.” ‘ An- 
cient Christianity,’ p. 316. 


X. Celibacy and Virginity—Mouks and nuns, bound by 
vows of celibacy, were considered the highest glory and 
greatest boast of the Church. “The Greeks,” says Chry- 
sostom, “ conceded this honour to the Church, and allowed 
that virginity, as seen in it, was a perfection supernatural 
and superhuman.” 

The manner in which celibacy was extolled, and the 
practical effects of it, are exhibited at length in Chrysos- 
tom’s three treatises or Sermons, which stand at the begin- 
ning of his works in the Benedictine edition, and are 
entitled, πρὸς τους ἔχοντας παρθένους συνειδακτους, Περὲ 
τοῦ μὴ κανονικαὶς συνοικεῖν ἀνδράσιν, Περὲ παρθενείας, and 
from these the following extracts are taken :— 

“Nuns stand in the very highest place in the heavenly 
choir. They are like the most select troops who form a 
King’s body-guard in an army. Nay, they are higher than 
the personal guards of a King; for these only stand by the 
King’s chariot ; but virgins are as it were the very celestial 
chariot itself of the Heavenly King, like the Cherubim ; as 
well as standing close to Him, like the Seraphim.” Περὶ τοῦ 
MN, &e., § 6. 

“A true nun is the very personification and ornament of 
Christian perfection! When she walks abroad she strikes 
every one with amazement as if an angel had come down 
from heaven. If one of the cherubim appeared on earth he 
would attract the eyes of all men; and so a nun should 
strike all beholders with awe and wonder at her holiness. 


APPENDIX A. 303 


Her time should be occupied with exercises of devotion or 
meditation :—at Church sitting in the deepest silence and 
abstraction ;—at home having nothing to do with any do- 
mestic affairs, avoiding the sight of men, and even the com- 
pany of women who are engaged in any of the affairs of 
life. Who will not stand amazed at seeing such an angelic 
life in the form of woman! What human being would ven- 
ture to approach or touch so dazzling a soul! All, whether 
they will or no, will stand off aghast as if they saw a mass of 
gold all flaming and flashing with fire.” Ibid. § 7. 

Such was the theory of this celestial, angelic, state. In 
its practical working at Constantinople, in Chrysostom’s 
time, it exhibited the most shameless contempt of decency 
and religion! Monks and nuns, not then confined to mon- 
asteries and convents, cohabited together with everything 
of marriage but its sanctity. Nuns were escorted into 
Church by their paramours, and delighted in receiving 
numerous attentions from them during the celebration of 
the “most awful mysteries.” πρὸς τοὺς ἔχοντας, &e., ὃ 10. 

And the remedy for this disgraceful scandal was—not an 
acknowledgment that this unscriptural and extravagant 
exaltation of celibacy was a violation of the laws of nature 
and of God, and a return to a true and healthy mode of 
thought and life—but it was nothing less than compelling 
the nuns,—those angelic beings of superhuman, dazzling, 
holiness,—to submit to a regulation exactly similar to that 
clause in the “ Contagious Diseases Act,” which has been 
thought by many persons to be too degrading and abomi- 
nable even for the very worst and vilest to submit to! The 
following are Chrysostom’s words :-- δρόμος λοιπὸν ταῖς 
μαίαις ual’ énddérnv ἡμέραν ἐπὶ τὰς τῶν παρθένων οἰκίας, 
καθάπερ πρὸς τὰς ὡδινούσας, οὐχ ὥστε λοχεῦδαι τιπτούδας,--- 
yéyove μὲν yap nat ἐπί τινων καὶ τοῦτο,---ἀλλὰ ὥστε 
διαγν ναι καθάπερ ἑπὶ τῶν ὠνουμένων θεραπαινίδων, τίς μὲν 


ἡ διεφθαρμένῃ, τίς δὲ ἡ ἀνέπαφος ; καὶ ἡ μὲν ὑπήκουδε ῥαδίως 


394 APPENDIX A. 


τῇ δοκιμασίᾳ, ἡ δὲ ἀντεῖπε καὶ αὐτῷ τούτῳ καταιόχυνθεῖδα 
ἀπῆλθεν εἰ καὶ μὴ διέφθαρτο, καὶ ἡ μὲν ἑάλω, ἡ δὲ NAL οὐκ 
ἑάλω, καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ πάλιν οὐχ ἧττον ἐκείνης αἰόχύνεται μὴ 
δυνηθεῖσα ἀπὸ τοῦ τρόπου φανῆναι, ἀλλὰ μαρτυρίας τῆς ἀπὸ 
τῆς ἐξετάσεως δεηθεῖσα. Περὶ τοῦ μὴ, &e., § 2. 

Let it not be supposed that this disgraceful and demo- 
ralized state of things at Constantinople was altogether ex- 
ceptional and rare. It was the natural and necessary result 
of the pernicious system which disparaged family life and 
family religion, and distorted and outraged the feelings of 
man, and the laws of God. A hundred years before the 
time of Chrysostom the same sort of thing was going on in 
the African Church, and the same disgraceful remedy ap- 
plied ; as may be seen in Cyprian’s Epistle to Pomponius. 

The Church of Rome has at any rate in this point im- 
proved upon the Nicene period ; and has introduced better 
regulations than were in force in Chrysostom’s time. 


XI. Enforced celibacy of the clergy.—The clergy were 
naturally expected to live the holy life, not only as an 
example to others, but as priests who had to touch “the 
awful mysteries.” Therefore when celibacy was regarded 
as a state of angelic holiness, and matrimony only at the 
best an allowed but low condition of Christian living, the 
clergy were expected not to marry. 

As early as the days of Tertullian for a presbyter to marry 
a second time was thought an abomination. 

By the beginning of the fourth century people were in- 
clined to refuse the ministrations of a married presbyter. 

The Council of Gangra (a. p. 324) condemns this objection. 
εἴ τις Oiwaupivoito mapa πρεσβυτέρου VEY AMLNKOTOS, ὡς μὴ 
χρῆναι, λειτουργηήδαντος αὐτοῦ, προσφορᾶς μεταλαμβάνειν», 
ἐνάθεμα ἔστω. Can. 4. But twenty years before this the 
Council of Elvira (a. p. 805), in which the ascetic spirit was 
stronger, ordered that ail the clergy should separate from 


APPENDIX A. 305 


their wives, or be deposed. Placuit in totum prohiberi 
episcopis, presbyteris, et diaconibus, vel omnibus clericis 
positis in ministerio, abstinere se a conjugibus suis, et non 
generare filios ; quicunque vero fecerit ab honore clericatiis 
exterminetur. Can. 33. ᾿ 

There was in fact in the earlier part of this century some 
variety in different places respecting the enforced celibacy of 
the clergy. The popular feeling against “married priests” 
was strong ; but Church authorities had not everywhere for- 
mally spoken. 

The Council of Ancyra (a.p. 315), Can. 9, decided that if a 
deacon at the time of his ordination declared his intention of 
marrying, as being in his case a necessity, he should be 
allowed to do so, otherwise not. 

At the Council of Nice (a.p. 325) it was proposed (as related 
by Socrates and Sozomen) that, for the reformation of man- 
_ ners, all bishops, presbyters, and deacons, who had married. 
before their ordination, should withdraw from their wives ; 
but owing to the energetic opposition of Paphnutius, himself 
an ascetic, the Council contented itself with enacting the old 
rule, τὴν ἀρχαιὰν παράδοσιν, that no one should be allowed to 


~ marry after he had been ordained. 


But before the end of the fourth century it had become at 
any rate a consuetudinary law, that the clergy must either be 
unmarried, or, if they had married before their ordination, 
they must thenceforth separate from their wives. Thus 

Jerome says, “ Certe confiteris non posse esse Episcopum, 
qui in Episcopatu filios faciat ; alioqui, si deprehensus fuerit, 
quasi adulter damnabitur.” ‘ Adv. Jovin.’i. - And again, “ Aut 
virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes ; aut si uxores 
habuerint, mariti esse desinunt.” ‘ Adv. Vigilant.’ 

Siricius, Bishop of Rome (a.p. 385), writes with abhorrence 
of certain presbyters and deacons, who had committed the 
crime of having children by their wives! ‘Sacerdotes Christi 
et Levitas tam de conjugibus, quam de turpi coitu, sobolem 


306 APPENDIX A. 


procreasse.” Ad Himerium Ep.1. These were to be allowed, 
on repentance and separation for the future, to continue in 
their office, but were never to be promoted. But if any of 
them insisted on the liberty of marriage, they were to be 
deposed, and never allowed to touch the sacred nryste- 
ries again. Siricius declares that such priests cannot please 
God; and that the Spirit of God cannot dwell except in 
holy bodies, 1.e., in those who abstain from marriage! 

So utterly did Church tradition contradict the Word of 
God! But the predicted apostacy was then far advanced. 


XI. Lyne Wonners, Miracles, and the Efficacy of Relics, de. 
—A taste for the invention and narration of miraculous 
occurrences appears as early as the beginning of the third 
century ; and, being encouraged by the countenance and 
support of the Church authorities, miracles continually 
increased in number and marvellousness. The object of all 
these miracles was to prop up some superstition,—such as 
prayers for the dead,—fanatical sacramentalism, — the 
asceticism of hermits, monks and nuns,—or the sanctity of 
martyrs’ bones, and other relics. 

Tertullian tells the story of a dead woman, who had not 
married again after the death of her husband, and whose 
hands lifted themselves up in the attitude of prayer while the 
presbyter was praying over her corpse ; and when the prayer 
was finished the hands laid themselves down again, as they 
had been before. “Scio foeminam quandam vernaculam 
Kcclesiz, forma et etate integra functam, post unicum et 
breve matrimonium, quum in pace dormisset, et morante 
adhuc sepultura, interim oratione Presbyteri componeretur, 
ad primum habitum orationis manus e lateribus dimotas in 
habitum supplicem conformiasse, rursumque condita pace, 
situi suo reddidisse.” De Anim. 51. 

Cyprian’s narrative of miracles, connected with the Eucha- 
ristic elements, has already been referred to. See his ‘De 
Lapsis.’ | 


APPENDIX 4.- 307 


But in the fourth century miracles flourished in much 
greater abundance. 

Gregory Nazianzen, in his Oration on Cyprian relates that 
after Cyprian had been beheaded, his body wonderfully dis- 
appeared, and was hidden for a long time in the house of some 
woman ; but at last it was in a marvellous manner brought to 
light, and was able to work nuracles; such as overcoming 
demons, curing diseases, giving a foreknowledge of future 
events ; “all which things the very dust of Cyprian is able,” he 
says, “to perform with the faith of his votaries, as those 
who have tried it know.”—Tijv δαιμόνων παθαιρεσίαν, τὴν 
τῶν νόδων κατάλυσιν, THY τῶν μελλόντων πρόγνωσιν, ἃ 
πάντα δύναται Κυπριάνου καὲ ἡ κόνις μετὰ τῆς πίστεως, ὡς 
ἰσαόσιν οἱ πεπειράμενοι, καὶ τὸ θαῦμα μέχρις ἡμῶν παραπέμ- 
ψαντες. Orat. 18. 

Ambrose, as related by his biographer Paulinus, in a similar 
manner countenanced the pretended miracles connected with 
the discovery of the remains of the martyr Nazarius, whose 
blood, when his grave was opened, was found quite fresh, as if 
it had just been shed,—a prototype of the liquefaction of St. 
Januarius’s blood at Naples ;—and his head, which had been 
cut off, was quite sound and undecayed, with the hair and 
beard not at all disorded. “ Vidimus autem in sepulcro, quo 
jacebat corpus martyris, sanguinem martyris ita recentem 
quasi eodem die fuisset effusus. Caput etiam ipsius, quod 
ab impiis fuerat abscissum, ita integrum atque incorruptum 
cum capillis capitis atque barba, ut nobis videretur eodem 
tempore quo levabatur lotum atque compositum in sepulero.” 
Paulin. Vit. Ambros. 

Paulinus also mentions the miracles performed by the 
remains of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, who, he 
says, discovered their bones to a priest, qui se sacerdoti 
revelaverunt, by which a blind man recovered his sight, devils 
were cast out of the possessed, &e. 

Ambrose himself in his funeral oration over his brother 


308 APPENDIX A. 


Satyrus, congratulated himself that he would now have the 
benefit of his brother’s ashes ; and that he would now be more 
in favour with God, when lying on his brother’s tomb. 
“Habeo quas complectar reliquias : habeo sepulcrum super 
quod jaceam, et commendabiliorem Deo futurum esse me 
credam, quod supra sancti corporis ossa requiescam.” Oral. 
de Excessu Satyri, § 18. 

But indeed in this century all sorts of pretended miracles 
took place at the shrines of martyrs everywhere, or were per- 
formed by the relics of saints, or by a piece of the true cross 
(see Paulinus, Natalis x.), or by the hands of the most ascetic 
of the monks and hermits. These miracles were recorded 
and countenanced by the highest Church authorities. See as 
a specimen the ‘Life of St. Anthony,’ by Jerome ; or any 
other work of a similar kind belonging to this age. 

Such things are called “lying impostures” in medizval 
Rome. What were they in the hands of Ambrose or Jerome? 


XTII. Crurcne Despotism—the oppression or persecution 
of those who opposed, or objected to, prevailing superstitions. 

Even at the very beginning of the third century the prin- 
ciple of Church despotism was avowed by Tertullian. He 
declares that Scripture is of God, but that discipline, 1.6., all 
the customs and usages of the Church, is of God also. He 
asserts that the Holy Spirit was given in order that this 
discipline might be brought to perfection ; and therefore 
Church ordinances (which are often in reality only man’s 
perversions of God’s truth), are the administration of His 
divine wisdom. ‘“Quum propterea Paracletum miserit 
Dominus, ut paulatim dirigeretur, et ordinaretur, et ad 
perfectum perduceretur disciplina ab illo vicario Domini 
Spiritu Sancto ... Que ergo est Paracleti administratio 
nisi lee, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod scripture reve- 
lantur, quod intellectus reformantur.” ‘De Veland. Vir- 
Gen Sk. 


APPENDIX A. 309 


And this principle was acted upon, and carried out by 
those who followed. Augustin, a century and a half later, 
presumed to say that the Holy Spirit ordered the Lord's Sup- 
per to be received fasting, because this was then the custonr 
of the Church. “Hoc enim placuit Spiritui Sancto ut in 
honorem tanti sacramenti in os Christiani prius Dominicum 
corpus intraret quam ceteri cibi.” Hp. 118, Januar. § 6. 

And so the visible Church with all its human laws and 
regulations, with all its accumulating superstitions, and 
departures from Christian truth, was declared to be the 
expression of the very mind and will, the presence and 
operation, of the divine Spirit ; and those who ventured to 
dissent from anything in or of the Church, however corrupt, 
were branded as heretics, and, if possible, crushed. There 
were good and true men here and there in the fourth cen- 
tury, who attempted to raise their voices against the corrup- 
tions of that age; but as we see in the case of Vigilantius, 
Jovinian, and others, they were trampled upon by Jerome, 
Ambrose, and their “orthodox” contemporaries ; and if 
they persisted in proclaiming Scriptural truth the secular 
arm was appealed to, to put them down. (See the case of 
Jovinian referred to in Lecture III. : and ‘ Vigilantius and 
his Times,’ by Dr. Gilly, may be read with advantage. ) 


x 

XIV. Tue Papacy, or the authority of the Bishop of Rome. 
—The authority of the Bishop of Rome over all Christendom 
was not of course fully established as early as the Nicene 
age. Plain instances of resistance to attempted dominion 
on the part of the Roman See occurred ; as whea the endea- 
vour of Victor (a.p. 185) to force the Roman observance of 
Easter upon the Greek Churches was resolutely opposed. 
Yet even in the third century, and increasingly so in the 
fourth, traces of an incipient papal supremacy are found, and 
principles acknowledged which were naturally developed 
into it. 


400 APPENDIX *A: 


1. Thus Cyprian, though he maintained his own indepen- 
dence against Rome, considered that Peter had a primacy 
among the Apostles given to him. “He regards Peter as 
the representative of the One Church ; whosoever therefore, 
according to him, forsakes the outward fellowship with the 
one visible Catholic Church, turns himself away from the 
representative of the unity of the Church connected by. 
divine appointment with the person of the Apostle Peter.” 

2. Then another step was taken ; and as there was a tradi- 
tion, even in the time of Ireneus and Tertullian, that Peter 
and Paul were the founders of the Church of Rome, and as 
Rome was once the seat of the dominion of the world, men 
began to consider the Roman Church as the seat or see of 
Peter, cathedra Petri, and to apply to it, what had been said_ 
of the Apostle Peter, as the representative of Church unity. 
Hence Cyprian calls Rome, “ Petri ecclesia, ecclesia princi- 
palis, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est.” Hp. 55 ad Cornel. 
And again in the same Epistle, “ Quum locus Petri, et gradus 
cathedre sacerdotalis vacaret.” 

3. Thirdly, in the fourth century, and especially in the 
latter part of it, we find foreign bishops applying to Rome 
for direction in ecclesiastical matters, and the Bishop of 
Rome replying, not to give advice as an equal writing to one 
independent of him, but as if issuing decrees and orders 
with an acknowledged authority over other Churches. Thus 
Siricius (a.p. 385), in answer to Himerius, Bishop of Tarra- 
cona, who had written about some disorders in his Church, 
says, “De his vero non incongrue dilectio tua apostolicam 
sedem ecredidit consulendam. De quibus... id duximus 
decernendum.” And again, “ Has ergo impudicas detestabi- 
lesque personas . . . eliminandas esse mandamus ;” and he 
speaks of persons who had been degraded, as “ auctoritate 
apostolice sedis dejectors.” In the same Epistle Siricius 
takes upon himself to lay down the law for all Churches, 
“Quid wniversis posthac ecclesiis sequendum sit, quid 


APPENDIX. A. 401 


vitandum generali pronuntiatione decernimus.” ‘Ep. ad 
Himer. § 9,10. And no objection seems to have been made 
to these claims. Indeed, at this very time, Theodosius the 
Great had ordered all nations who were subject to his 
dominion, to receive the faith which had been delivered by 
St. Peter to the Romans. ‘Cunctos populos quos clementiz 

nostre regit temperamentum in tali volumus religione versari, 
᾿ς quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio 
usque nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat.” ‘Codex Theodos.’ 
xvi, 1, 2. And “Valentinian IIT. (a.p. 424) forbade the 
bishops both in Gaul and in other provinces to depart from 
ancient usages without the approbation of the venerable 
man, the Pope of the holy city.” Ranke, ‘History of the 
Popes,’ vol. i. p. 12. 


26 


APPENDIX B. 


ON THE AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS. 


UESTIONS about the action and influence of the Coun- 
cils or Synods of the post-apostolic Church are not 
actually included within the scope of the ecclesiastical polity 
of the New Testament. Yet they are so far indirectly con- 
cerned with it or supplementary to it, that some notice of 
the true position and legitimate authority of such councils, 
seems to be required for the complete consideration of the 
subject. The more so, inasmuch as this authority and 
position have often been misrepresented not only by the ex- 
travagant assumptions of the councils themselves, but by 
many theological writers ever since ; and even in our own 
Church such misconception seems still not to be uncommon, 
notwithstanding the clear and emphatic declaration of our 
Articles to the contrary. 

It appears in many quarters to be taken for granted that, 
because each ‘“ Church has power to decree rites and cere- 
monies and authority in controversies of faith,” therefore 
the whole Church Universal has a similar power and author- 
ity over all national and particular Churches. From an 
indistinct and erroneous idea of the unity of the Catholic 
Church, it is assumed that, being One, itis a single commu- 
nity, authorised and able to govern its component members, 
and having a divine commission to exercise such government. 

402 


’ APPENDIX 8. 403 


Then, as nothing else can be found to answer the purpose, 
General Councils are assumed. to be the judicial or legisla- 
tive organs of this reigning Catholicity ; and their decrees 
and canons are represented as the authoritative utterances 
of the Universal Church, binding with a divine sanction 
upon Christian men and Churches at all times and in every 
place. So that on the whole we are landed in the conclu- 
sion that, while provincial synods had authority over their 
respective provinces, Cicumenical Councils demand the 
obedience of the whole of Christendom for ever. 

But to all such representations it is sufficient to reply, 
First, that it is an inexorable fact that the Catholic Church 
on earth is not one community, but is One, just as the hu- 
man race is one, though divided into separate and indepen- 
dent nations. It cannot, therefore, and never could, exer- 
cise the functions of government. It has no means or 
machinery for governing, even if it had any authority to 
govern. In the words of Archbishop Whately, “No Chris- 
tian, and no particular Church owes obedience to the Uni- 
versal Church of which it is a part. There is not, and there 
never was, since the Apostles’ time, any such body existing 
as could claim such obedience. The Catholic Church on 
earth is not one scciety, but is one, just as the human race 
is one.” (‘ Kingdom of Christ Delineated,’ p. 181.) : 

Secondly, it is obvious that. there were no General Coun- 
cils during the first three centuries of the Church’s history ; 
and therefore if these are the voice and expression of Catho- 
lic authority, Catholicity during all that time was dumb. 
During all that time of difficulty and danger both within 
and without, and often of fierce struggles for very life, 
Catholicity put forth no authoritative utterance—exercised 
_no government at all! Was this a dereliction of duty,—or 
a natural and necessary consequence of its true position? 

Thirdly, there is such a striking difference between the 
consultation of the Apostles at Jerusalem, and the General 


404 APPENDIX B. 


Councils of the fourth and following centuries, that it may 
be affirmed that there is in the New Testament no example, 
as there is certainly no precept or command, for the holding 
of such assemblies, or for the exercise of any government at 
all by the Catholic Church. 

A very short review of the origin and action of Church 
Councils in the early centuries will further elucidate this not 
unimportant subject ; and a solution of the questions con- 
nected with it is to be found in the joint consideration of 
two things,—the mutual independence of the Churches, and 
the force of public opinion,—i.e. the opinion of Christians 
generally throughout the world. 

During the first three centuries each Church with its 
bishop,—as soon as it had a bishop,—at its head, was inde- 
pendent, and carried on the government within its own dio- 
cese, OF παροικία, Without subjection to any foreign or supe- 
rior authority. No one Church pretended to exercise a do- 
minion over others ; or when such attempts were made, they 
were resisted as an unlawful usurpation. Even the Church 
of Rome, though already receiving a certain degree of spe- 
cial respect and reverence as the supposed “See of Peter,” 
was not permitted until the latter part of the fourth cen- 
tury, and not always then without remonstrance, to interfere 
- with this Diocesan independence ; as was seen, when Victor 
(a.D. 185)endeavoured to force the Eastern Churches to con- 
form to the Roman mode of observing Easter ; or when 
Zosimus and Celestinus in the early part of the fifth century 
took upon them to absolve persons excommunicated by 
Churches in Africa. 

The only force which then bound the several Churches to- 
gether, and preserved their unity,—that is to say, the only 
external power besides the divine truth and grace in the 
hearts of men,—was the general state of Christian feeling 
and opinion maintained amongst them all. The grand com- 
mon objects of the Christians’ faith and hope,—their deep 


APPENDIX ΚΒ. 405 
consciousness of a community in blessings, and in brother- 
hood,—and their common position as small bodies of men 
in the midst of heathen populations,—all from the very first 
drew Christians together by the closest ties,—fostered a 
comprehensive unity among them,—and gave birth immedi- 
ately to that undefined and unorganized, but vigorous and 
effective power, which is produced by the mutual sym- 
pathies of men acting and reacting on each other, and which 
the term Public Opinion is intended to describe. 

This power is often appealed to in the New Testament, 
especially by St. Paul, who had to deal with so many 
Churches of different nations and localities. To this power 
_he appealed, when he informed the Roman Christians as an 
inducement to avoid disunion and divisions, that “their obe- 
dience,was come abroad unto all men ; ” — when he silenced 
the Corinthians with the final argument, “ We have no such 
custom, neither the Churches of God ;” or stimulated their 
zeal by relating to them the liberal contributions of the 
Macedonian Churches ; and so in other epistles in words of 
similar effect. And this power lost none of its force in the 
ensuing centuries. The common sentiments, which kept it 
in healthy action, were themselves cherished and main- 
tained by various means! which promoted a close and friendly 


Letters addressed to Churches by 
distant bishops, or persons in au- 


1 Among these means were :— 
Collections made for foreign 


Churches in times of distress; a 
practice begun in apostolic times, 
as mentioned in Acts xi. and 
2 Cor. viii., ix. 

Commendatory letters given to 
Christians who were going abroad, 
and who thereby obtained a hos- 
pitable and friendly reception from 
the brethren in distant lands; a 
practice also alluded to in the 
New Testament, as in Rom. xvi. 1 ; 
2 Cor. 11]. 


thority, on particular emergencies ; 
such as the Epistle of Clement to 
the Corinthians, and of Polycarp 
to the Philippians. 

A mutual consent on the part of 
every Church to acknowledge the 
validity of the ecclesiastical acts of 
all other Churches ; and to join in 
communion with them, or their 
individual members, in divine 
worship and all holy offices, not- 
withstanding any difference in 


406 APPENDIX 8. 


union, and an interchange of thought and feeling” between 
all the Churches. ; 

Hence it naturally came to pass that neighbouring 
Churches often sought each other’s counsel, and strength- 
ened each other’s hands. If a bishop of one Church had a 
perplexing case to deal with, or a difficult point to deter- 
mine, he had recourse to another bishop, or to several others, 
for advice. Hence Provincial Synods, consisting of repre- 
sentatives from the different Churches in a province met 
from time to time, to consider matters of common interest 
or danger,—to express their opinions on some difficulty or 
prevailing error,—and to encourage united and harmonious 
action throughout the province. These provincial Synods 
were voluntary assemblies, self-convened by their own choice 
and appointment ; and their decisions, however formally ex- 
pressed, had no power or authority, except what came from 
voluntary submission to them, and from the operation of 
public opinion in the Church at large. This is plainly evi- 
denced by such cases as that of Paul of Samosata, who when 
condemned and deposed from the see of Antioch, refused to 
submit, and kept possession of the Church-house and pre- 
mises. And the Council was powerless in the matter, until 
they called in the aid of the pagan government, and pre- 
vailed upon the Emperor Aurelian to interfere.—See Euse- 
bius, “Ἢ. K.’ vu. 30. 

The deliberate judgments of a number of grave and re- 
spected men from different places necessarily carried with 
them great weight, and commended themselves to general ac- 
ceptance. Those Churches who had joined in the decisions 
of course obeyed them. Those who disapproved of them 
might disregard them, if they chose ; but they would be ex- 


religious rites and forms, which bishop on his appointment sent 
they might severally prefer. circular letters to foreign Churches, 

A practice, which however came to signify that he was in com- 
somewhat later into use, that every munion with them. 


APPENDEX: B. 407 
posed to the ill-opinion, and possibly the avoidance, of other 
Churches if they did so; and individual Christians could 
hardly venture to stand aloof from the rest,—at least with 
any peace or safety to themselves. A very considerable 
amount of influence thus accrued to these Synods ; and they 
were at last looked upon as a sort of court of appeal for the 
redress of grievances, and the decision of ecclesiastical 
questions, both of doctrine and of discipline.! 

The nature and position of the so called Gicumenical or 
General Councils, so far as they were ecclesiastical assem- 
blies, differed not at all from the Provincial Synods, except 
that they gathered representatives from a wider field. 
Their authority in this respect stood upon exactly the same 
footing, and their decrees could claim nothing more than a 
voluntary submission. For, as 1ὖ may be observed in the 
words of Jeremy Taylor, “ That the authority of General 
Councils was never esteemed absolute, infallible, and 
unlimited appears in this, that before they were obliging it 
was necessary that each particular Church respectively 
should accept them, concurrente universali totius ecclesiz 
consensu, &c., in declaratione veritatum que credendz 


per Greecias illa certis in locis con- 
cilia ex universis ecclesiis, per qua 


1 Provincial synods appear to 
have been first commenced in the 


provinces of Greece, where at the 
‘end of the second century they 
seem to have been already estab- 
lished as regular institutions, meet- 
ing at stated seasons. The famili- 
arity of the Greeks with repre- 
sentative assemblies, such as their 
Amphictyonic Council, and the 
meetings of the Achzan and the 
J8tolian League, perhaps led the 
Churches in those districts to be 
the first to adopt a similar practice 
for themselves. Tertullian thus 
alludes to these synods. ‘‘Aguntur 


et altiora queeque in commune trac- 
tantur, et ipsa representatio totius 
nominis Christiani magna venera- 
tione celebratur.”’—‘ De Jejun.’ §13, 

‘¢ By the middle of the third cen- 
tury, the annual provincial synods 
appear to have been universal, if 
we may judge from the fact that 
we find them observed at the same 
time in parts of the Church so 
widely remote from each other as 
Northern Africa and Cappadocia.” 
—Neander ‘Church Hist.’, vol i. 
281. 


408 APPENDIX B. 


sunt. That is the way of making the decrees of Councils 
become authentic and be turned into a law, as Gerson 
observes ; and till they did, their decrees were but a dead 
letter. And therefore it is that these later popes have so 
laboured that the Council of Trent should be received in 
France ; and Carolus Molineus, a great lawyer and of the 
Roman communion, disputed against the reception. And 
this is a known condition in the Canon Law; but it proves 
plainly that the decrees of councils have their authority 
from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches, 
not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Coun- 
cil. . . . And as there was never any Council so general, but 
it might have been more general; for in respect of the 
whole Church even Nice itself was but a small assembly, so - 
there is no decree so well constituted, but it may be proved 
by an argument higher than the authority of the Council ; 
and therefore General Councils, and national, and provincial, 
in their several degrees, are excellent guides for the pro- 
phets and directions and instructions for their prophesy- 
ings; but not of weight and authority to restrain their 
liberty so wholly, but that they may dissent, when they see 
a reason strong enough so to persuade them, as to be will- 
ing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sin- 
cerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peace- 
able, but, as they believe, their necessary, disagreeing.”— 
‘ Liberty of Prophesying,’ Sect. vi. end. 

Hence it follows that our Church is bound only by those 
General Councils whose authority it has accepted, and only 
so far as it has accepted their decisions. 

But besides this there is another consideration which 
must not be overlooked. The General Councils which 
were held in the earlier centuries of the Church, and which 
are the most commonly held up now for our submission, 
were not simply ecclesiastical assemblies. They partook of 
the nature, and had a share in the power, of a civil institu- 


APPENDIX 8. 409 


tion. For they never came into existence until after the 
accession of Constantine, when Christianity had become to 
a certain extent the established religion of the Roman 
Empire, and was in alliance with the State. They were 
convened by the emperor’s edict : they held their sittings 
under his sanction: their decrees were enforced by the 
imperial authority ; and in some cases civil penalties were 
inflicted on those who disobeyed them. The decrees 
therefore of such General Councils were in reality constitu- 
tions or regulations of the Imperial Church as then exist- 
ing; and they can have no more authority over other 
Churches, than the laws of the Imperial State have over 
other nations. The Canons of the Council of Nice have as 
such no more claim upon our obedience as English Chris- 
tians, than the civil edicts of Constantine have upon our 
obedience as English citizens. 

Nor is it superfluous even in these days, and in our own 
Church, to assert our Christian liberty in this very thing ; 
and to speak plainly about the supposed authority of Gene- 
ral Councils over us. Ona late occasion a learned bishop 
of the Church of England, and others with him, asserted, 
“That an Archbishop by the law of the Church, had only the 
power of consecration in association with his Suffragans ;” 
and maintained, “that the Archbishop would not be acting 
in accordance with the law of the Church, if he should conse- 
crate a Bishop in the face of a protest from his Suffragans ;” 
the only proof of the existence of such a law being a refer- 
ence to Canon IV. of the first Council of Nice, and Canon 
XIX. of the Council of Antioch (a.p. 341) ; just as if the 
Canons of these Councils were ipso facto undoubted laws of 
the Church of England! 

And in accordance with modern practice this theology 
was published in ‘ The Times’ newspaper, Dec. 22, 1869. 


APPENDIX C. 


CONFESSION, ABSOLUTION, AND PENANCE. 


HE gross moral and religious evils of the Confessional 

and of priestly Absolution, which polluted the Church 
of Rome in the Middle Ages, and which still to a certain 
extent adhere to its system, are not, like many others of 
the Romish errors, to be laid to the charge of the Nicene 
Fathers. Even after the flood of Sacerdotalism had set in 
strongly upon the Church in the third and fourth centuries, 
the practice of Confession and Absolution continued to be 
remarkably free from the infection of priestcraft; even 
while the loss of apostolic truth in other respects caused the 
acts of penitence, or penance, which were enjoined by 
Church authority, to be mingled with lamentable errors. 


I. Confession.—1. Public Confession in the presence of a 


Christian congregation,—called even in the Latin Churches 
by the Greek name Hxomologesis,—was at first the only 
mode in use ; and it was either obligatory or voluntary. 

(a) Confession was obligatory in the case of great offend- 
ers, who had been excommunicated, and were required 
to make a public acknowledgment of their transgressions, 
before they were re-admitted to Church communion. 

(b) Persons who had sinned more secretly, and had not 
been excommunicated, sometimes voluntarily made this 
public confession, before they ventured to come to the 
Lord’s Supper. 

(410) 


* 


APPENDIX ‘C. 411 


This public confession seems to have been the only kind 
known to Tertullian, and after him to Cyprian. The former 
in his treatise ‘De pcenitentia,’ and the latter in his ‘De 
Lapsis,’ give full expression to their sentiments on this sub- 
ject; and they exhort those who had committed any 
grievous sin in secret to confess it publicly before the 
Church,—a duty which apparently. was sometimes very re- 
luctantly performed. 

2. Private Confession.—During the third century, and 
first in the Eastern Church, the increasing reluctance felt 
by Christians to make a public confession of their sins, and 
the occurrence of some difficulties connected with this 
practice, caused the introduction of private confession for 
voluntary penitents. Origen mentions both the public and 
the private mode as used for voluntary confessions in his 
time ; and he recommends those who feared publicity to 
choose some prudent and friendly Presbyter, and to con- 
fess to him in private ; and then to be guided by his advice, 
as to whether a public confession should afterwards be 
resorted to or not. ‘‘Circumspice diligentius cui debeas 
confiteri peccatum tuum : proba prius medicum cui debeas 
causam languoris exponere..... si intellexerit et pervi- 
derit talem esse languorem, tuum, ut in conventu totius 
ecclesiz exponi debeat et curari, ex quo fortassis et ceteri 
eedificari poterunt, et tu ipse facile sanari, multa hoc 
deliberatione, et satis perito medici illius consilio, procuran- 
dum est.”—De Psalm. 37. Hom. 2. 

In some Churches, however, and in particular at Constan- 
tinople, a Presbyter was specially appointed to act as a 
Penitentiary, or Confessor,—6 ἐπὶ τῆς weravoias,—to hear 
private confession ; and the practice of thus confessing 
became general in the East. In the Latin Church the 
public voluntary confession appears still to have held a 
_ place ; since Leo L., Bishop of Rome, issued a direction for 
its discontinuance in A.p. 459, to the following effect. “Ne 


412 APPENDIX GE 


de singulorum peccatorum genere libellis scripta professio 
publice recitetur, quum reatus conscientiarum sufficiat solis 
sacerdotibus indicare confessione secreta;.. . sufficiat — 
enim illa confessio que primum Deo offertur, tum etiam 
sacerdoti, qui pro delictis precator attendit.”— Labbe ‘ Coneil.’ 
vol. vi. p. 410. 

The confession of secret sins, whether publicly before the 
Church, or privately to a Presbyter, during all this time 
was voluntary. But persons were exhorted to have re- 
course to it, and the practice was greatly promoted by the 
prevalence of exaggerated notions about the Lord’s Supper, 
—hby the belief that Christian ministers could release them 
from the guilt of their transgressions, and were priests who 
could make their peace with God for them—and by igno- 
rance of the way of safety and of pardon in Christ. 

Auricular confession to a priest was ordered and made 
obligatory in the Church of. Rome by the Fourth Lateran 
Council, ap. 1215, in the following decree :—‘‘ Omnis 
utriusque sexus fidelis postquam ad annos discretionis 
pervenerit, omnia sua solus peccata confiteatur fideliter, 
saltem semel in anno, proprio sacerdoti, et injunctam sibi 
peenitentiam studeat pro viribus adimplere.”——Labbe ‘ Concil.’ 
vol. xxiii. p. 1008. This entirely altered the whole character 
of the Confessional, not merely because what was before 
voluntary was now compulsory, but because now every sin 
was to be confessed, and consequently in many cases extorted 
by the priest, whereas before only those sins which were 
felt to be a burden upon the conscience were disclosed, and 
then only so far as the penitent himself thought necessary 
or expedient. | 

At Constantinople, in the middle of the fourth century, 
on account of certain scandals in which a Deacon was in- 
volved in connection with private confession, the Bishop 
Nectarius, the predecessor of Chrysostom, was induced to 
abolish the office of Penitentiary, and men were directed to 


ΨΚ ο  ς, 413 


confess their sins to God; all Christians, being then allowed 
to come to the Lord’s Table according to their own judg- 
ment and conscience, unless they were under censures pub- 
licly pronounced upon them by the Church authorities. 
Ὑπὸ tov αὐτὸν χρόνον ἔδοξε καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς μετανοίας 
περιελεῖν πρεδόβυτέρους τῶν EXHANOIW@Y..... συγχωρῆσαι δὲ 
ἕκαότον τῷ ἐδίῳ συνειδότι τῶν μυστηρίων peréxerv.—ocrat. 
‘Hist. Eccl.’ v. 19. 

This was a wise return to the apostolic doctrine and 
practice. And it is a further testimony to the soundness of 
the Church at Constantinople in this respect, however erro- 
neous in others, that many exhortations conceived in a 
similar spirit are found in the Homilies of Chrysostom. 

The abolition of this mode of private confession, as an 
acknowledged Church ordinance, could not of course pre- 

vent those, who wished to do so, from relieving a burdened 
conscience by opening their griefs or perplexities to a Chris- 
tian friend, whether Presbyter or Layman. 


II. Absolution.—Absolution like Confession was either 
public or private. 1. Public absolution consisted of a decla- 
ration of God’s forgiveness of the sins which had been 
repented of and confessed, accompanied with the imposition 
of the hands of the Bishop and Presbyters, and the prayers 
of the congregation. If Church censures had been imposed 
they were then formally removed ; and the absolved per- 
son was admitted to Ohurch communion, and to a partici- 
pation in the Lord’s Supper, exclusion from, and admission 
to, which was especially connected with confession and 
absolution. 

This ministerial absolution was called “Remission of sins,” 
—remissio facta per sacerdotes,—and was regarded as a 
matter of great importance. It was in giving and refusing 
this that the “priests” exercised the power of loosing and 
binding, which the Church claimed for them ; as Ambrose 


ae APPENDIX C. 


says, when writing against the tenets of the Novatianists, 
“Qui solvere non potest peccatum, non παροὺ Spiritum 
Sanctum. Munus Spiritus Sancti est officium sacerdotis ; 
jus autem Spiritus Sancti in solvendis ligandisque crimini- 
bus est.” —De poenitentia, 1.5. Yet Cyprian, who entertained 
very high notions of the power of the Christian “ priesthood,” 
declares that none can forgive sins but God. “Solus 
Deus misereri potest veniam peccatis, que in ipsum 
commissa sunt, solus potest ille largiri, qui peccata nostra 
portavit.” So that the ministerial action, however exalted 
and necessary in the estimation of those times, was strictly 
speaking regarded as declaratory only. ᾿ Unfortunately this 
was not always kept in view in the Church’s teaching, or in 
the popular theology. 

2. Private absolution was a much less solemn act, 
amounting to little more than a permission given by the 
Presbyter to come to the Holy Communion, and a declara- 
tion of God’s forgiveness, which he seems to have expressed 
in the form of a prayer ; it we may judge so from the words 
in-the quotation cited above, “qui pro delictis precator 
atten dit.” 


III. Penance or penitence,—pcenitentia.—Before absolution 
was given it was requisite that the Church, acting through 
its Bishop and other ministers,—or the individual Presby- 
ter in the case of private absolution,—should be satisfied of 
the reality of the repentance of those who sought to be 
absolved. Hence those, who by great sins had incurred the 
public censures of the Church, were required to go through 
a course of penitence, longer or shorter, more or less severe, 
according to the nature of the offence. This was called in 
the Greek Church by the general term μετανοεῖν or 
μεταμέλεσθαι; but in Latin “agere poenitentiam,” whence 
the English expression “ to do penance.” 

Tertullian includes the whole course of this humiliation 


APEENDIX' C. 415 


under the name of exomelogesis, and he requires a person by 
way of penitence, during the time of his exclusion from 
Church communion, ‘‘to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to 
defile his body with filth, and cast down his spirit with 
erief, to eat and drink nothing pleasant, to strengthen his 
prayers with fasting, to groan, weep, and moan aloud by 
night and day to God, to roll on the ground before the 
presbyters, to kneel to the favourites of heaven, to entreat 
all the brethren to pray and intercede for him.” 

“Exomologesis prosternendi et humilificandi hominis 
disciplina est, conversationem injungens misericordie illicem. 
De ipso quoaue habitu atque victu mandat, sacco et cineri 
incubare, corpus sordibus obscurare, animum meeroribus 
dejicere, illa que peccavit tristi tractatione mutare. Cete-- 
rum pastum et potum pura nosse, non ventris scilicet sed 
anime causa ; plerumque vero jejuniis preces alere, inge- 
miscere, lacrimari et mugire noctes diesque ad Dominum 
Deum tuum, presbyteris advolvi, et caris Dei adgeniculari, 
omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis sue injungere.’’— 
‘De peenit.’ ὃ 9. 

Cyprian’s recommendations are very similar to those of 
Tertullian, adding only an injunction to the penitent ‘‘to 
devote himself to good works, by which sins are taken away, 
and to almsgiving, by which souls are delivered from 
death.” Orare oportet impensius et rogare, diem luctu 

transigere, viciliis noctes ac fletibus ducere, tempus omne 
— lacrimosis lamentationibus occupare, stratos solo adherere, 
in cinere et cilicio et sordibus volutari, post indumentum 
Christi perditum nullum jam malle vestitum, post diaboli 
cibum malle jejunium, justis operibus ineumbere quibus 
peccata purgantur, eleemosynis frequenter insistere quibus a 
morte animee liberantur.—‘ De Lapsis.’ 

The object of all this was declared to be to make satisfac- 
tion to God,—to appease his anger,—to win his compassion 
by self-inflicted suffering,—to expiate the sins committed, 


416 APPENDIX C. 


—to purchase pardon and deliver the soul from death. 
This is the doctrine taught by Tertullian, and still more 
distinctly by Cyprian, whose treatise, De Lapsis, abounds 
with such expressions as “ Deo satisfacere,—satisfactionem 
facere,—Dominus satisfactione placandus est,—I1li meestitia 
satisfacere,—expiare delicta,—Dei iram et offensam jejuniis, 
fletibus, planctibus placare,—pcenitentia crimine minor non 
sit ; putasne tu Dominum cito posse placari ;’—and, as we 
saw above, the necessity of purchasing the divine forgive- 
ness by almsgiving and other good works. 

Similar ideas and similar practices prevailed also in the 
following century, especially in the Western Church. Thus 
Ambrose, in his ‘De pcenitentia,’ while powerfully urging 
against the Novatianists the duty of receiving returning 
penitents, and while expressing many excellent thoughts on 
the subject of repentance and forgiveness,—yet equally 
with Tertullian and Cyprian requires the most abject out- 
ward humiliation on the part of those who sought re-admis- 
sion into the Church. “Volo veniam reus speret; petat 
eam lacrimis, petat gemitibus, petat populi totius fletibus ; 
ut ignoscatur et obsecret ; et quum secundo et tertio fuerit 
dilata ejus communio, credat remissius se supplicasse, fletus 
augeat miserabilior, postea revertatur, teneat pedes brachiis, 
osculetur osculis, lavet fletibus, nec dimittat, ut de ipso dicat 
Dominus Jesus, Remissa sunt peccata ejus multa, quoniam 
dilexit multum. Cognovi quosdam in poenitentia sulcasse 
vultum lacrimis, exarasse continuis fletibus genas, stravisse 
corpus suum calcandum omnibus, jejuno ore semper et 
pallido mortis speciem spiranti in corpore pretulisse.” 
De poenit. i. 16. 

All this is clearly accounted for by the fact that the 
whole view taken by the Church of the third and fourth 
centuries, on the subject o/ repentance and forgiveness, was 
of necessity very much affected by two false principles then 
almost universally prevalent. The one—that self-inflicted 


ALTEENDIX:C. 417 


suffering and bodily maceration were especially pleasing to 
the Almighty, and most effectual for obtaining his favour. 
The other—that almsgiving, or bestowing one’s property 
upon the Church, was a sovereign remedy for sins, and 
cancelled a sinner’s guilt.—See Appendix A, Nos. v. and ix. 

In the fourth century the course of penitence prescribed 
for grave offences of a moral character appears more dis- 
tinctly formalized than it had previously been ; the period 
of exclusion for different degrees of guilt was more clearly 
defined ; and penitents had to pass through three or four 
successive stages of partial admission into the Church, 
before they were received into fullcommunion. Ten, twelve, 
or even twenty years were sometimes occupied with this 
discipline. The following is Ambrose’s account of one of 
these periods of humiliation.—‘‘ After the guilty man has 
come to sense of his sin let him stand for three years weep- 
ing at the door of the house of prayer, and begging the 
people as they enter to make earnest and sympathizing 
prayers for him. After this let him for three years be 

“received inside the Church as a hearer only, and be turned 
out after the Scripture Lessons and the Sermon, without 
being allowed to stay during the prayers. Then if he has 
sought it with tears, and fallen down before the Lord [the 
Bishop?]. with contrition of heart and deep humiliation, let 
him be allowed for another space of three years to kneel 
down during the prayers. And so, when he has thus dis- 
played the fitting fruits of repentance, let him be received 
in the tenth year at the prayers of the faithful [the missa 
fidelium], but without partaking in the Eucharistic sacrifice ; 
and lastly, when two years more have passed, let him be 
deemed worthy of the communion.”—Basil. Canon. 75. 

“Tt is to this system of penance and confession that in 
the Roman Church there has attached itself an immense 
and most singular mass of superstition and abuses.”— 
Guericke iv. 19. 


27 


AP τὸ ΟΝ ἐν ΟΥΘΟΝ ΟΣ 


THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


UR review of the office and position of the Christian 

ministry would hardly be complete without some notice 

of what has been called, ‘‘ The Apostolical Succession,” inas- 

much as the doctrine designated by this expression claims a 

direct connection with the Apostles and the exercise of their 
authority. 

The idea which forms the foundation of this dogma ap- 
peared in some slight form as early as the beginning of the 
third century ; when it supplied Tertullian with one of his 
weapons against some heretical Churches. But it was ma- 
tured and put forth most distinctly in more modern times. 
At the Reformation sharp disputes about the validity of our 
Protestant Orders originated from it. It furnishes still to 
Romanists a ground of attack against all Churches who have 
protested against Romish errors ; and the spiritual authority 
and position of our clergy are by some amongst ourselves 
supposed to rest upon a foundation which it supplies. 

The doctrine of the Apostolic Succession of the Ministry, 
according to those who hold it, ‘‘ means that all men who have 
a right to be considered duly appointed ministers of Christ 
have received from Him a commission to minister in His 
name, conveyed in an outward and visible manner in a direct 
line from the holy Apostles.” That is to say, that Christ 

(418) ; 


De i ee tf We eel? a” - 


APPENDIX D. 419 


gave his Apostles a certain spiritual authority and power, 
which they by His direction transferred to their successors ; 
and these again to others after them, and so on in a perpe- 
tual line of successive transmissions. The authority and 
power which have been thus transmitted are specially those 
of ordaining priests, and giving them the power of duly ad- 
ministering the sacraments,—bestowing the grace of absolu- 
tion,—or doing other priestly acts. And the successors, to 
and through whom alone this authority and power have 
been transmitted, are bishops. According to this theory 
the whole virtue, force, and efficacy of the Christian ministry 
from the Apostles to the present time have been in and by 
this succession. Those who have been ordained by bishops, 
descended in an unbroken line of this succession from the 
Apostles, are alone lawful Christian ministers; since any 
break in the links of this ecclesiastical chain invalidates the 
whole standing of an individual functionary, or of a Church, 
by cutting off, as it were, the flow of essential energy and 
divine power, by the uninterrupted communication of which 
the true ministerial life is enabled to act and move. So 
that there can be no true Christian ministry, no true Church, 
and no validity in the sacraments, except where there are 
ministers duly ordained by bishops who have received their 
episcopal authority and power by this uninterrupted trans- 
mission from the Apostles. All others, therefore, who 
minister in any congregation, are regarded as usurpers, 
schismatics, or heretics,—intruding into an office which is 
not theirs,—the Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, of modern 
days,—without lawful authority, powerless of all good, and 
constituting with their people a band of revolters from 
Christ, instead of a branch of His Church. 

But what solid resting-ground of conviction is there in all 
this imaginative theory, when examined by the light of 
Scripture and of truth? It is true that a restricted succes- . 
sion something like this was in force for the priesthood of 


420 APPENDIX’ DY: 


the Jewish Church, and the services of their Temple; but 
the Christian ministry, as we have seen, is not a priesthood, 
nor was it taken from the Temple services, so as to suggest 
any argument of analogy from that source, except an 
argument altogether against this theory and entirely sub- 
versive of such a doctrine. But what is of much more 
weight, and forms an absolulely conclusive refutation of this 
dogma, is the following consideration. The succession of 
the Jewish priests was distinctly laid down by. divine 
authority from the beginning ; and reiterated commands, 
enforced by the severest judgments, emphatically declared, 
that no one who was not of the seed of Aaron might 
officiate at the altar of God. Nothing but a divine com- 
mand expressly given could ever make such a regulation 
imperatively exclusive. Nothing but a direct and positive 
ordinance of the New Testament could justify the assertion 
of such a doctrine now. But in the Christian dispensation 
no such command was ever givea ; nor is there in the New 
Testament the slightest intimation, much less an authorita- 
tive announcement, that such an apostolical succession is the 
only source of lawful ministerial authority. The subject, in 
fact, is not once mentioned or alluded to in the Christian 
Scriptures; nor are the Apostles ever shown to have 
themselves received, or to have given to others, any such 
powers as this dogma asserts to have been transmitted. 

The words of the New Testament, which are sometimes 
pressed into the service of this doctrine of the corrupted 
Church, are in reality destitute of all evidence in its favour ; 
whereas nothing short of the most explicit declaration 
would be of any avail. When Jesus said to his Apostles, 
“To, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world,” he gave indeed a gracious promise to his minister- 
ing servants in all ages ;—but he spoke not a word about 
the virtue or necessity of any particular mode of their 
succession. When St. Paul wrote to Timothy to commit 


APPENDIX D. 421 


the truth which he had received “to faithful men who 
should be able to teach others also,’ he desired indeed a 
succession of sound doctrine, and of faithful men to teach 
it ;—but he did not declare that ministerial authority must 
be transmitted from himself through a chain of episcopally 
consecrated bishops, and must depend for its preservation 
and very existence upon that chain’s unbroken continuity. 
The citation of such texts as these shows what an infi- 
nitesimal amount, or miserable pretence, of evidence is 
enough for those who have made up their minds without it ; 
and shows also what little countenance in the apostolic age 
was given to such theology. 

If from the consideration of the conclusive argument, 
derived from the absence of all scriptural authority, we 
turn to matters of fact and historical experience, we may 
see some, who profess to have this apostolic succession, 
teaching vain traditions and gross errors instead of apostolic 
truth ; and some, who make no pretensions to it, and are 
not even episcopally ordained, altogether sound in doctrine 
and in practice, and with as true seals of their ministry 
among their people, as St. Paul had of his Apostleship 
among the Christians at Corinth. 

The only answer that is or can be given for this is, that 
it is not the security of true teaching, but the power of 
imparting the grace of the sacraments, and of absolution, 
which the apostolic succession conveys. And this betrays 
the real character of the doctrine in question, and shows! 
that it is only a fiction invented and propagated in the | 
Church to bolster up sacerdotal superstitions. 

Add to this the fact, that if this dogma were true, there 
is no Christian minister now living, who has ascertained, : r 
could ascertain, whether he is lawfully exercising the duties 
of his office or not ; but he must remain in doubt as to the 
validity of his ordination and the position in which it has 
placed him. 


422 APPENDIX D. 


Of an apostolic succession, which is not commanded by 
the Apostles, nor mentioned in the New Testament ;— 
which professes to transmit powers, never, as far as we 
know, by the Apostles either received or given ;—which 
secures no soundness in the faith, but lends itself to error, 
as readily as to truth ;—which can exclude the best as well 
as include the worst of ministers ;—and which would leave 
every Church in doubt about the validity of its ministra- 
tions and very existence ;—it is surely not too much to say 
that it “15 a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon 
no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word 
of God.” 

The authority of the Christian minister in any place is 
given to him by the Church in which, and for which, he 
acts : and this authority is apostolic, if his teaching is sound 
in apostolic truth ; this authority is from Christ, if His 
Church is ἃ. legitimate Christian community formed in 
obedience to Christ’s command. 


The doctrine of the apostolical succession, though it some- 
times unduly alarmed our early Reformers not yet entirely 
disentangled from the errors of the ancient Church ;— 
though clung to since their time by some respected names 
in our comnrunion ;—though now strongly maintained, and 
insisted on, by advanced Anglicans not yet drawn to 
Rome ;—is not the doctrine of the Church of England, as the 
following proofs distinctly testify. 

1. A doctrine, so important and fundamental, if it is 
believed to be true, could not have been omitted, as it is, 
from our Articles and Prayer-book, if it had been held by 
our Church ; whereas it is not only omitted, but the 
wording of Art. XXIII. is quite mcompatible with it. 

2. The Statute of Queen Elizabeth, a. p. 1570, Anno xii. 
Reginee Elizabethe c. 12, entituled “ An Act for the Minis- 
ters of the Church to be of sound Religion,” only requires 


APPENDIX DP. 423 


those, who had received Ordination in “any other form of 
Institution, Consecration or Ordering” than that of the 
Church of England, to subscribe to the “ Articles of Religion ” 
in order to hold Ecclesiastical preferment in this country ; no 
objection at all being raised to the validity of such ordina- 
tions. 

3. It is proved by a great variety and a long series of 
evidence, that during the first hundred years after the 
beginning of the English Reformation Presbyterian com- 
munities were recognised, and men who had only Presby- 
terian ordination were received, and obtained the highest 
preferments in the Church of England. 

4. Hooker, the learned and revered champion of the 
English Church, whom no one will accuse of not knowing 
what its doctrines really were, while declaring Episcopacy 
to be the best and most desirable, says, nevertheless, 
“Whereas some do infer that no ordination can stand but 
such only as is made by Bishops, which have had their 
ordination likewise by other Bishops before them till we 
come to the very Apostles,..... to this we answer, that 
there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to 
allow ordination made without a Bishop,”—‘ Eccl. Pol.,’ vii. 
14, which gives up the whole question. 

5. And even now the modern practice of not receiving 
men with Presbyterian orders, to minister in our Church, 
only points to the necessity of Episcopacy as a form of 
ecclesiastical government, and not to the transmission of 
sacerdotal power through Bishops. This, therefore, is not 
holding the “apostolical succession,’ which deals with 
Episcopacy not as a desirable mode of government, but as 
a necessary channel of divine grace. 

Much valuable information on this subject is to be found 
in a pamphlet very recently published by Longmans, 
entituled, ‘Apostolical Succession, not a doctrine of the 
Church of England.’ It is written by an honest High- 


424 APPENDIX Ρ. 


church Anglican clergyman who has joined the Church of 
Rome, and is addressed to another clergyman of the same 
school, who has not yet taken that step. He, of course, 
looks at the subject from the Romanist point of view; but 
the historical and documentary evidence which he adduces 
is fairly dealt with, and clearly proves what the title of the 
book expresses. 


oaks ; 
is 
= ΓΑ a 
~ ye iM 
ΣῪ Ἔ 
Ξ ἘΝ 
ἣν ΓΕ 
hs # 
Σ ae ; 
fine 
“<2 ἐγ: 
Ἵ 


ne ἐν eel er 
Sean Ae 
She 


Z Ἂν» 2 Ν 7 J 
. » Ω . " ᾿ 4 
ΠΣ ΠΝ Mie ΡΥ ΤΣ fee, 37 AV? Se “Est So 
tae 7. ‘ary Oe ME ἼΩΝ, Ε ᾿ ἐδ ἐν 
ΡΝ ὦ aig ee rN ; See ines is Cater ie 2 A rea 
ὩΣ Η ᾿ a 5 ΓΑ i “or yA 


“ 

= 
= 
oll 
om 
ae | 
- 

7 

“lf, 
bare 


ιν - 
᾿ 
᾿ 
ν΄ 
’ 
° 
<n 
ner 
Sy 
~*~ 
= =} 
a 
a 


